Showing posts with label consumer authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer authority. Show all posts

Saturday, September 05, 2009

5 Panamanian banks with worst customer service

Considering that in other countries the Republic National Bank of New York was involved in money laundering and the list of failed banks keeps getting longer, Panama is known as a country with adequate financial supervision and a tough place where to open a bank account.
When it comes to customer service, Panamanians are very demanding. In a 3 million people country with 100 banks, customers swap stories about which banks have better or worst service.
A local survey finally came up with the list of the 5 banks with the largest number of customer service complaints. The winners (or losers) are
HSBC http://www.hsbc.com.pa/ (25,7% of those polled),
Citibank http://www.citibank.com/panama/
Banistmo http://www.banistmo.com/ (now acquired by HSBC, further increasing its lead)
Banco Nacional de Panamá http://www.banconal.com.pa/
Caja de Ahorros http://www.cajadeahorros.com.pa/ .
The common element in the worst 5 is that they are US-owned or Panama-government owned. Panama shareholder-owned banks such as Banco General, Credicorp, and Banvivienda are not among the top 5 and their e-banking systems are very good.

If a written complaint to the bank has not been anwered satisfactorily after 30 days, customer service complaints must be submitted to the Superintendencia de Bancos, which has in their website:
- New Guide for Claims in Spanish
- Recommendations for Customers in English
- Customer Complaint portal in Spanish

An acountholder is always free to:
- File a Criminal Complaint (if misappropiation or a felony occurred) before the Department of Judicial Investigations DIJ
- File a Civil Complaint in court through an attorney. If a complainant really wants to get even, a bond for 20% can be posted of the amount claimed in order to seize assets from the bank for the duration of the case.
A Spanish translator is always needed because complaints are only handled in Spanish.

Capital Financiero printed an article on the survey.


BANCOS Y CLIENTES
Evalúan sector bancario
La firma encuestadora Dichter & Neira realizó a solicitud de Capital una encuesta con la finalidad de conocer la penetración de productos y servicios bancarios en Panamá.
En tal sentido se realizaron entre vistas a 420 clientes y a 109 banqueros de la plaza. La investigación se hizo vía telefónica durante el período comprometido del 23 al 26 de junio de 2009.
En el estudio se preguntaba a los clientes si había hecho algún cambio en sus hábitos por la crisis y el 90 % dijo que no y un 9.1% que sí.
Un 28,3% de los encuestados dijo también que hizo cambios, principalmente en el sentido de gastar menos, 15,2% que usó menos su tarjeta de crédito y 8,7% dijo que eliminaría su tarjeta.
Sobre la preferencia para elegir entre un banco y otro, más del 50% de los clientes consultados respondió que elegía en base a los tipos de interés, gastos bancarios y la atención que brindara el banco.
En cuanto a cuál era el banco preferido para depositar su dinero, el 65,5% se enfocaba en bancos grandes y el 21,9% le era indiferente y el resto se enfocaba por los pequeños.
Dichter & Neira fue más allá y pidió a los encuestados que dijera en cuanto a tamaño cuál era de su preferencia. En tal sentido, el 65,5% se orientó a los bancos grandes, 12,6% pequeños y 21,9% le era indiferente.
Sobre la satisfacción con la atención y servicios, hay que tener presente aclara la firma encuestadora, que el panameño es condescendiente y por ende califica un poco más alto de lo que en realidad piensa.
En tal sentido de las 420 personas encuestadas un 7% calificó como excelente la atención de los bancos, un 49% la calificó como buena y un 38,9% como regular.
La misma pregunta, pero dirigida a los banqueros, reportó solo un 2,8% como excelente, 64.5% como buena y 32,7% como regular.
El estudio también se enfocó en los servicios en línea que ofrecen los bancos de la plaza. Un 21,7% de los clientes lo calificó como excelente, 57,1% como buena y 18,8% como regular.
Otras de las preguntas en esta investigación fue: ¿Ha interpuesto alguna queja o reclamo por los servicios del banco? Un 91,9% dijo que no y 8,1% dijo que sí. El banco HSBC, concentró el mayor número de quejas de los encuestados (25,7%); seguido de Citibank, Banistmo y Banco Nacional de Panamá.
Pero en qué consistían las quejas de los usuarios de los servicios bancarios, el estudio reveló que un 17,6% se relacionaban con transacciones mal hechas, 14,7% por problemas con su tarjeta y demora en la entrega de documentos y un 11,8% tuvo demoras en sus transacciones.
Al evaluar a los clientes sobre las tasas que cobran los bancos, la mayoría consideró que son razonables.
Capital también pidió a la empresa encuestadora que buscara reacciones en la banca en el sentido de conocer la situación del sector bancario panameño. El estudio realizado constató que los bancos filtran más los clientes que antes (64,6%).
Un 60,6% de los entrevistados vía telefónica dijo que los bancos ponen más dificultades en la solicitud de créditos que antes, también se respondió en mayoría que no se otorgan crédito como antes.
Sobre los productos que se impulsarán este año, los banqueros consultados dijeron en un 23,4% que los préstamos hipotecarios y un 20,6% los préstamos personales y 11,2% las cuentas de depósitos.
En cuanto a la percepción sobre los controles del sistema, el 76,6% de los banqueros consultados dijo que la banca panameña tiene algunos defectos en sus controles que permiten que haya lavado de dinero
.
Draft translation
BANKS AND CUSTOMERS Evaluate banking sector
The Dichter & Neira polling firm conducted a survey application for Capital in order to meet the penetration of banking products and services in Panama.
As such views were conducted among 420 clients and 109 bankers in the Square. The research was done by telephone during the commitment period from 23 to 26 June 2009.
The survey asked customers if they had made any change in habits by the crisis and 90% said no and 9.1% yes.
28.3% of respondents also said they made changes, mainly in the sense of spending less, 15.2% used less than credit card and 8.7% said they would remove your card.
On the preference to choose between a bank and another, over 50% of customers surveyed said they chose based on interest rates, bank charges and the care provided by the bank.
As for what the bank preferred to park their money, 65.5% focused on big banks and 21.9% was indifferent and the rest focused on the small.
Dichter & Neira went further and asked respondents to say about what size was his preference. In this regard, 65.5% was directed to large banks, 12.6% small and 21.9% was indifferent.
On satisfaction with the care and services, keep in mind clarifies the polling firm, that the Panamanian is condescending and thus slightly higher scores than they actually think.
In that sense the 420 people surveyed by 7% scored excellent attention from banks, 49% called it good and 38.9% as fair.
The same question, but addressed to the bankers, reported only 2.8% as excellent, 64.5% and 32.7% as good as regular.
The study also focused on the online services offered by banks in the market. 21.7% of clients described it as excellent, 57.1% and 18.8% as good as regular.
Other questions in this study was: Has a grievance filed by the bank's services? 91.9% said no and 8.1% said yes. The bank HSBC, the largest number of complaints of respondents (25.7%), followed by Citibank, Banistmo and National Bank of Panama.
But what the "complaints from users of banking services, the study revealed that 17.6% were associated with bad transactions made, 14.7% for problems with your card and delayed delivery of documents and 11, 8% had delays in their transactions.
In assessing clients about the fees banks charge, the majority considered reasonable.
Capital also asked the survey company to seek feedback on the bench in the sense of knowing the status of the Panamanian banking sector. The study found that the filter banks more customers than before (64.6%).
60.6% of those interviewed by telephone said the banks put more difficulties in the application of provisions previously, a majority also said they are not given credit as before.
On products will be promoted this year, bankers polled by 23.4% said that the mortgage loans and personal loans 20.6% and 11.2% of deposit accounts.
Regarding the perception of system controls, 76.6% of bankers surveyed said the local banking system has some flaws in their controls that let you have money laundering
.
.



More about the worst 5 in:
Google: 54,500 results for "HSBC sucks"
http://pa.banquejas.com/: Website for bank complaints (guess which is the leader in comlaints)
Forospanama.com: Forum on worst customer service in Panama (U.S. Consular Section is a favorite)

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Clauses in real estate contracts confirmed as abusive

http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2007/12/01/hoy/negocios/1191494.html

After the 8th Circuit Judge rendered an initial May 31, 2007, decision in the Duque vs Neto S.A. case in favor of the buyer of a condo (see Tough times for sellers of Panama City skycrapers?), the Third Superior Tribunal confirmed the decision on appeal.


The Tribunal only considered as non-abusive a clause which allows the developer to charge 1% of the price until the registration of the sale, which leaves as abusive clauses:
  • A 5% unilateral increase in the purchase price if the seller deems that building materials have increased in price,
  • The seller to withhold all previous downpayments if it unilaterally considers that the buyer is in default of agreement obligations,
  • The seller to unilaterally decide not to build and simply return all downpayments without interest and with the seller waiving all claims for said action,
  • All disputes to be subject to arbitration excluding the consumer protection courts.

The defendants Neto, S.A., are entitled to file a cassation action before the Supreme Court. Although precedent is not fully binding on other judges and this case does not declare void clauses in other contracts, it provides powerful arguments to those buyers suing developers with contracts that have similar clauses.

This consumer protection case serves only those buyers - foreign or locals - who have a single home in Panama. Those who are buying several properties for resale are not protected by the concept of abusive clauses. Needless to say, the expense of having a contract in Spanish translated into the buyer's language goes a long way towards avoiding running into an abusive clause.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Lawsuits against developers increase

Our friends at the Consumer Authority inform that 183 complaints have been filed against several developers for defects in apartments. The champs in complaints are:
35 complaints from Urband (sic) Land Corp. (Grupo Los Pueblos)
16 Procasa
8 Sucasa
6 Centenario Don Juan
6 Inmobiliaria Royal Hill, S.A.
3 Construtec, Inc.
5 Green Bay Plaza, S.A.

BM Real Estate, Inc., Inmobiliaria Green Bay Plaza and Inversiones Ventaviv were wise enough to settle with their complainants.

More in the Spanish press release
http://www.autoridaddelconsumidor.gob.pa/pdf/NP_QuejascontrainmobiliariassedisparanenlaAutoridad_10agosto07MA.pdf

In the meantime, the National Council of Housing Promoters (CONVIVIENDA) claim that they will submit to the Authority a model promise agreement meant to be free of abusive clauses. We went to their webpage and asked for a copy of the agreement. Maybe the agreement will take the CON out of CONVIVIENDA...

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Tough times for sellers of Panama City skycrapers?

http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2007/07/15/hoy/negocios/1048739.html


120 draft construction proyects have been approved for buildings above 25 stories and 80 more have been applied for.

The value of construction permits in Panama City for Jan-Apr 2007 is of 321.9 million - 30% more than for the same 2006 period. 15 skyscrapers above 50-stories are already in the pipeline.

Ministry of Labor Executive Decree 15 of 2007 seeks to address the increasing number of worker fatalities in skycrapers by requiring that builders of projects above US$1million have an independent Safety Official. The issue was brought to the public's attention after several days of small demonstrations by trade unions.

The Executive Decree imposes a US$10,000 contribution to an Occupational Safety, Higiene and Health at Work for the Construction Industry Fund, run by the Ministry of Labor. Where I come from, that is called a tax, which cannot be enacted by Executive Decree, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Builders are not happy...


In a related story, the Minister of Housing signed July 13 a resolution imposing a 14-story limit on buildings around the Andres Bello park of the El Cangrejo neighborhood, as well as 5-meter clearance.

Residents of the 60-year old neighborhood lobbied the government for this limitation, being the first time residents succesfully curb the current construction boom. Destruction of sidewalks, debris (or workers) falling off construction sites, noise of machinery during evenings, cement poured unto streets and sewers (with the resulting overflow of fecal matter) and other inconveniences have made Panama City construction companies a very unwelcome corporate citizen, affecting current neighbors and even incoming snowbirds seeking their balcony in paradise.


In the meantime, the III Justice Tribunal has to decide on the appeal filed by a Panama corporation against a May 31 judgment of the 8th Civil Circuit Judge, whereby some clauses of a purchase agreement are deemed "abusive". The case started when the Consumer Protection Authority received the complaint of the buyer of a San Francisco apartment who signed a form agreement prepared solely by the seller with no negotiation. The judgment deemed as abusive 5 clauses which provide for:

  • A 5% unilateral increase in the purchase price if the seller deems that building materials have increased in price,
  • The seller to withhold all previous downpayments if it unilaterally considers that the buyer is in default of agreement obligations,
  • Billing the buyer a 1% monthly charge on the amount outstanding after issuance of the occupation permit, whether the buyer uses the apartment or not,
  • The seller to unilaterally decide not to build and simply return all downpayments without interest and with the seller waiving all claims for said action,
  • All disputes to be subject to arbitration excluding the consumer protection courts.

We can expect that after the appeal is decided, the defendant sellers will file a cassation action before the Supreme Court, so a final decision will take years to be effective.


URLs (Yahoo registration required):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Live_in_Panama/files/Jurisprudencia/Sentencia_55_07_promesa_inmueble1.pdf

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Live_in_Panama/files/Jurisprudencia/Sentencia_55_07_promesa_inmueble1.pdf
.