What Would You Have Done?

The incident I raise happened about a month ago, but I think it raises an important point. How much leeway should banks give branch managers? In this instance, the branch manager stuck to a "zero-tolerance" policy put in place by Bank of America, but at what point should common sense be allowed to overrule a policy? How can branch managers be given the power to create exceptions to the rule?

From Reuters:

A bank in Florida refused to cash a check for an armless man because he could not provide a thumbprint. "They looked at my prosthetic hands and the teller said, 'Well, obviously you can't give us a thumbprint'," Steve Valdez told CNN on Wednesday.

But he said the Bank of America Corp branch in downtown Tampa, Florida, still insisted on a thumbprint identification for him to cash a check drawn on his wife's account at the bank, even though he showed them two photo IDs.

In the incident last week, a bank supervisor told Valdez he could only cash the check without a thumbprint if he brought his wife in with him or he opened an account with them.

"I told them I neither wanted an account with them and couldn't bring my wife in because she was nowhere close by," Valdez told CNN.

Bank of America said in a statement cited by CNN: "While the thumbprint is a requirement for those who don't have accounts, the bank should have made accommodations."

Valdez said his treatment by the bank violated the U.S. Americans with Disability Act requiring institutions to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled persons.

Tags: bank-of-america, branch-banking, retail, retail-banking

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James McCallum on October 2, 2009 at 8:53am: Discernment is more of an art then a science.

love your posts.

Cheers,

jbm; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris Duncan on October 2, 2009 at 9:57am: I don't think this so cut and dry. He didn't have an account with the bank. Yes, he had two forms of id, but maybe he should have taken some time before making the trip to see what their requirements would be. Did the wife have an account? That wasn't clear. Perhaps a phone call could have been made and some security questions asked of her.

I probably would have cashed the check, but then my neck would be on the line if it turned out to be fraud. Tough call.

cd :O); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rebecca B. Walzak on October 2, 2009 at 10:17am: You don't say what amount the check was for. A well run bank should have confidence in their tellers and have done the analysis to determine at what level tellers should have the authority to waive requirements. This type of analysis provides a definative point at which variations provide positive gain from a customer point of view and when they are more financially harmful due to the presence of fraud. The banking industry needs to catch up to the rest of the world's focus on analyzing processes and developing cost/benefit analysis.

Of course, with B of A's size I guess might does make right.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ward Harrington on October 2, 2009 at 12:41pm: Might there have been more to the story than "since you don't have a thumb, I don't have to cash your check?" The bank is a sitting duck because they can't, for example, cite trouble with the (alleged) wife's account as a reason for declining to cash the check. Inconsistencies with the ID? High dollar amount?

The one thing you could question BofA for is releasing a statement that appears to fault the branch. If the bank put out a zero-tolerance rule, they need to stick by it. Second guessing is too easy.

To second guess the response ..."we are reviewing the policy" might have sufficed, followed if necessary by citing the incidence of fraud and the availability of handicap-friendly ATMs.; ▶ Reply to This