The District Court approved the joining of the Israel Consumer Council as a friend of the court in a class action filed against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank on the claim that it charges a NIS 101 fee for sending a recording of a call to a customer, instead of the old NIS 20 which is equal to 2 cents today. The court ruled that the Consumer Council is also related to issues in the banking field, and considers the lawsuit a consumer issue for all intents and purposes. The court noted that the participation of the Consumer Council in this procedure will assist the court in examining the request, in a way that will increase the protection of consumers.
Mizrahi Tefahot, managed by Moshe Larry, is the third largest bank in the banking system after Poalim and Oumi. His profits come from the mortgage sector and the basic banking activity – loans and current account management in return for different and varied fees, such as this strange fee – for recording a voice call. It seems that the price should not be only 2 shekels, but certainly not NIS 101. We are in a digital era and transfer of a recording of A call cannot be priced at such an amount.
So how does it happen? How does it happen that an operation of a few shekels costs the customer 101 shekels. First, it is important to emphasize that this is a phenomenon at all banks, secondly, we emphasize that the public has the obligation to regularly check their fees, they will find that they could save fees if they chose the appropriate fee routes.
Bank fees – what do you pay for and how can you save? >
And for the matter itself – this is a historical commission that has not been updated for decades. The bank is of the opinion that the NIS 101 is the proper rate (and probably attached to the original cost), but it does not take into account that it used to be a story to actually get a recording. Since then decades have passed and it has become a simple and cheap service. So what does the bank do? trying It’s called the successful method. He tries to charge a high commission, succeeds, excellently. Doesn’t work, we’ll see what happens. To this day he charged and no one tweeted, now a plaintiff remembers to tweet, in the meantime this fee probably brought in between many millions and tens of millions in decades. In other words, even if the plaintiff now wins, it is too little too late.
The Consumer Council receives many complaints from consumers complaining about difficulties in receiving recordings of conversations they had with the dealer. The consumers claim that sometimes they are required to pay excessively for the retrieval, or refuse to send the recording and require them to come to the business in order to listen to the recording.
In February of this year, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Mizrahi Bank by Mr. Nir Agib through lawyers Arnon Grafi, Shai Chen and Anbal Arad who requested to receive the recording of the conversation after seeing that his account details did not match the agreement he was promised, and was required to pay a fee of NIS 101. Request for a lawsuit It is claimed that collecting a fee for “retrieving a recorded conversation” (as the service is called in the bank’s tariff) is against the law. The group on behalf of which the request was submitted is the bank’s customers who were charged a fee for retrieving a recording of a conversation with the bank in the last seven years.
The Consumer Council points out that the high fee requirement is against the law, and the public has the right to review information about him, including recorded phone calls, correspondence, chat and any information that is stored digitally. The Privacy Protection Law enshrines the customer’s right to review personal information found in the company’s databases. The bank’s policy of charging consumers an excessive fee for reviewing information about themselves, contrary to regulations, discourages them from exercising their rights and actually prevents them from paying for a service that should be provided almost for free. The fee for the information request is today 20 old shekels (which is about 2 agorots).
The Consumer Council sided with the consumers in this matter of principle, and states that “this policy seriously harms consumers, who find it difficult to prove their factual claims against businesses for overcharging, misleading, exercising unfair influence, canceling a transaction, etc. There is no justification for this violating policy when the technological means The ones that exist today allow the business to store the information and locate it easily and at low cost, and to transfer it to the consumer in a secure and fast manner, including via e-mail, or by digital means.”
From a complaint received by the Consumer Council it appears that In the last year and a half, over 10,000 complaints were received from consumers who made a telephone transaction. Most of the victims are vulnerable consumers, senior citizens, or new immigrants who find it difficult to prove their claims of deception or cancellation of a deal, or veterans who are exposed to aggressive marketing by dealers who offer courses in exchange for the deposit money and do not fulfill the promises made in the AP.
The Consumer Council says that “listening to a telephone conversation in which the consumer was recorded by a business is an important consumer right, which slightly balances the disparity of power between the consumer and the business, and allows the consumer to settle a dispute that arose between him and the business easily and efficiently. There is no reason for a business, contrary to the law and the rules of He is committed, will charge a commission that is hundreds of percent higher, and will prevent consumers who shy away from the commission amount from exercising their right to transparency and fair service”