The media gateway to the East.
For inquiries:
Phone: +234 81 8616 6160
Email: editor.championnews@gmail.com
It was the last week of the Six (6) Months probationary period. No referral letter had come through from the old bank to the new one. The new bank had sent countless reminders to the AO. Now the new bank was demanding that the AO begins to tidy her office, as it had no option than to relief the AO of her duties.
The AO paid visits to the old bank and pulled all the strings she thought she could to no avail. She was not the first. Several Bank Officers had in the past lost out on new job offers because of referral letters. It seemed that banks used refusal/ denial of referral letters to settle scores with AOs who left to greener pastures without tidying up properly with the old bank especially in terms of outstanding credit lines.
The last resort was for the AO to file a law suit against the old bank as she could think of nothing else to do in the circumstance. It seemed like a fate accompli, but never the less, she had to throw her hat into the ring to give it all she got.
The AO sued the old bank for NGN25million damages. In the suit, she declared that she had followed the laid down bank processes and procedures according to the Credit Risk Manual for the bank to avail the NGN100million facility to the customer.
She submitted that not only was the facility duly secured by a duly perfected deed of legal mortgage, but also, that the bank management had evaluated the credit facility and granted all levels of approvals.
In her deposed affidavit, she submitted that there was no violation whatsoever of the bank’s credit policy guidelines and that it was ludicrous for the bank to deny her referral letter to the new bank on the grounds that the NGN100million credit facility had gone bad, therefore demanding that she recovers the loan personally, before a referral letter would be given to her new bank employers.
It was the AOs further submission that the new bank had issued her several reminders that her services would no longer be required if after the Six (6) Months probationally period the old bank had not sent a referral letter confirming that she served in the previous bank.
This very weighty claim in the law suit was served on the old bank to answer to the claims and declarations.
At this time, the old bank had a Customers’ Ombudsman whose key function was to mediate fair settlement to resolve complaints, disputes and conflicts involving the bank.
The Customers’ Ombudsman was also acting as the Legal Adviser of the old bank at the time when the writ of summons and statement of claim for NGN25million damages was served on the bank.
The conventional practice of a legal department would have been to appraise the management of the bank of the suit and the contingent liability of NGN25million and to instruct an external solicitor of the bank to defend the suit in favor of the bank against the claims of the AO.
The Customers’ Ombudsman wearing two hats now, waded through the facts of the case and the merits and demerits of the case and found that the old bank could not successfully defend the suit against the AO, because it was a fact that the AO had complied with all the laid down Credit Risk appraisal manual/ procedure and that it had not violated any bank procedures to avail the credit and more so the facility was duly secured by a registered deed of legal mortgage.
The Customers’ Ombudsman decided against the conventional practice of merely instructing an external solicitor to defend an action that was sure to be decided against the bank, in due course, that would have also seen the new bank relieving the AO of her duties, if the referral letter was not forwarded to the new bank.
The Customers’ Ombudsman put a call through to the AO’s Solicitors who had filed to action, to demand what would be the best resolution process in the action.
The AO’s Solicitors was surprised about the telephone call, because it was a very unusual tact by a bank to call for a resolution of the matter at the initial stage without filing a defense to the action.
This is the bane of most organizations, who have over the years piled up needless contingent liabilities against their organizations, in very simple clear-cut matters that could have been resolved without the need of filing actions in court, because no one wanted to think resolution like the Customer’s Ombudsman.
Oftentimes, it was an ego trip by organizations, who did not want to appear “weak” in the litigation battle by calling for an early resolution and did not want to back down, as doing so may appear they have been defeated.
Furthermore, organizations do not always want to be the first to call for settlement, not realizing that they were saving their overheads costs and contingent liabilities by not allowing cases that may readily be resolved to fester in courts.
Indeed, it is actually strength not weakness, and it is also clever to resolve complaints and conflicts with business partners rather than allow the relationship to degenerate to a point of irreparable needless damage that may have been salvaged with a Customer’s Ombudsman.
This is why so many banker/customer relationships have been smeared, because complaints that may have been readily resolved have been allowed to fester and have dragged both parties into court with huge law suits/claims where parties were unable to amicably resolve what may be considered very simple issues.
It would appear that the key reason for this laid-back attitude that swells the litigation portfolio of organizations over time, is because they do not understand the workings and the skill set of a Customer’s Ombudsman, as distinct from a Customer Care Officer, a Legal Officer and or a Compliance Officer.
This case in point illustrates the distinction between these job functions, as perhaps only the Customer’s Ombudsman would think resolution, mediation and settlement of complaint even at the stage of litigation.
The AO’s Solicitor explained to the Customer’s Ombudsman, that the law suit might have been avoided, if the old bank had caused the referral letter to be issued to the new bank, considering that the AO did not violate any credit banking policy, in availing the facility, which in actual fact was availed by the bank and not the AO.
Furthermore, the bank had a recourse in the registered legal mortgage, to recover the debt, rather than pursue same, she decided to frustrate the AO out of her new job, by refusing to issue the required referral letter.
The Customer’s Ombudsman agreed with the AO’s Solicitor (which is a very rare stance) and asked if the referral letter were issued today, whether the AO’s Solicitor would file a notice to discontinue the law suit?
This was a big relief to the AO’s Solicitor, who immediately gave his word and affirmed that, if the old bank were to issue the referral letter, before the new bank terminated the job of the AO, that the law suit would instantly be withdrawn through a Notice of Discontinuance.
At this time, the Customer’s Ombudsman’s resolution clock was ticking very fast, as it was barely less than three (3) days to the end of the probationary period of six (6) months, that was going to see to the termination of the AO’s job in the absence of the referral letter.
The Customer’s Ombudsman took very unconventional steps, by immediately writing a detailed report to the old bank’s management, stating the foregoing and demanding approval of the managing director to cause the referral letter to be issued and sent instantly to the new bank to avoid defending a law suit of NGN25million that would obviously be decided against the bank in due course, especially after the AO would have lost her job which may compound the matter, and leading the court to award higher colossal punitive damages against the bank.
The old bank’s managing director was very impressed with this approach and sought audience with the Customer’s Ombudsman to affirm whether the law suit would be discontinued if the bank were to issue the referral letter. The Customer’s Ombudsman confirmed that there was a commitment extracted from the AO’s Solicitor in that regard.
The managing director approved the report authorizing the HR to cause to issue instantly, the referral letter to the new bank. Armed with the managing director’s approval, the Customer’s Ombudsman saw to it that the line Executive Director who had hitherto refused to sign off on the check-list by the AO, reluctantly and grudgingly signed off and the HR instantly issued the referral letter and was immediately taken by a dispatch rider to the new bank’s HR, just at the nick of time, with a day to spare.
This saved the blushes of the AO, who was not just relieved, but glad that there was such an office as the Customer’s Ombudsman who would not follow conventional models to resolve complaints and or law suits at the speed of light.
The AO unpacked her bags as the Customer’s Ombudsman had just saved her job and the AO’s Solicitor as promised, filed a Notice of Discontinuance and served it on the old bank the following day, thereby bringing to a close the NGN25million law suit against the old bank.
This, in the history of litigation, was perhaps the fastest and shortest resolved law suit, without the bank having to spend money to defend an action, she was sure to lose.
This also further underscores the need for organizations to have a Customer’s Ombudsman, whose primary function is complaint resolution at the shortest time possible at very minimal cost/ expenses to the organization.
Dr. Uwem Akangson is a Customer’s Ombudsman, a Member of the International Ombudsman Association, (IOA) USA, a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, (ACIArb) UK, an Alumni of the Harvard Business School (HBS) & a Member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management (CIPM) Nigeria.
For a better society
Recover your password.
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Comments are closed.