内容

两次投诉,两种结局

Majority of financial complaints result in no compensation

 
当消费者认为他们受到某些金融机构的不公平对待或遭欺骗时,他们有权对金融机构提起投诉。但是,并不是所有的投诉都能给消费者带来满意的结局。根据投诉的性质,有些投诉可能会获得赔偿,而另一些投诉则因为没有充足理由而被搁置或驳回。
When consumers believe they were mistreated or cheated by a financial institution, they have the right to file a complaint. However, not all complaints can be resolved to the satisfaction of consumers. Depending on the nature of the complaint, some may be awarded compensation, while others are found to be without merit and are dismissed. 
 
事实上,消费者的大多数金融投诉结局都是投诉者没能拿回一分钱而告终。根据“银行服务和投资调查组织”(OBSI),一个以解决有关银行业服务和投资服务争端的服务机构所提供的统计数据,约有85%的银行服务投诉和63%的投资服务投诉个案都以投诉者最终未能得到任何赔偿而告终。
More often than not, complaints are settled without a single penny being awarded to consumers.  According to statistics provided by Ombudsman of Banking and Investment Services (OBSI), which offers dispute resolution services for banking and investment services, 85% of banking cases and 63% of investment cases result in no compensation awarded to the complainants. 
 
新移民冯卫东(化名)曾对两家不同的金融机构分别提起投诉。由于两起投诉的性质截然不同,冯投诉案也获得全然不同的结局。
Mr. Feng Weidong (assumed name) , a newcomer to Canada, brought forward two complaints against two different financial institutions. Since the nature of the complaints is different, they have resulted in completely different outcomes.
 
冯因550 股Elan Corp.股票曾与两家金融机构发生纠纷。冯坚信自己受到这两家公司的不公平对待甚至是欺骗,因此他对这两个机构分别提出投诉。
Feng had disputes with two financial institutions that involved trading of 550 Elan Corp. shares. Maintaining that he was treated unfairly or was even cheated by both companies, Feng filed complaints against the two institutions.
 
争执起因
A disgruntled customer
 
2010年4月,冯通过其汇丰银行的免税储蓄账户(TFSA)购买了550 股Elan Corp的股票。两年后,他通过书面要求银行将股票转出到另一家经纪公司PID(化名)。但是由于其申请表出现疑点,冯的转股指令未得以立即执行。
In April 2010, Feng bought 550 Elan Corp shares through his TFSA account with HSBC. Two days later, he instructed the bank, in writing, to transfer his shares to a brokerage firm, PID (assumed name). But due to confusion in the application form, the transfer request was delayed.
 
但冯在银行执行他的转股指令前改变了主意。他打电话给银行,要求停止转股。但该口头指令未能得到银行的立即执行。当银行后澄清了其转股申请表上的疑点后,于2010年7月将他的股票转出。
Mr. Feng changed his mind prior to his transfer instruction being processed. He called the bank, requesting to stop the transfer request. But his verbal request was not processed by the bank immediately. When the confusion in his transfer application was cleared in July 2010, the bank proceeded with transferring the shares out. 
 
冯投诉称,汇丰银行未能及时执行他最新指令,即停止将股票转出。他在2010年7月致电汇丰银行,要求银行对此作出解释。银行客服代表因此提议,允许冯将转出的Elan股票从另家公司转回,然后为其将股票卖出。
Feng complained that HSBC failed to follow his most recent instructions – to stop transferring out shares. He phoned HSBC in July 2010, demanding an explanation. A customer service rep made an offer to allow Feng to sell his Elan shares upon receiving them back from the other firm.
 
但是冯似乎误解了银行的提案。他误以为银行为他出售Elan 股票的建议是在Elan股票仍在汇丰账户中的前提下而提出。而据当时Elan股票的价位,如果这一提议属实,汇丰则白白给冯提供了一笔$2700元的外财。
 But Feng seemed to have misunderstood the offer. He thought that the bank allowed him to sell the shares as if the shares were still being held by his HSBC account. Had this been a valid offer, it would be worth about $2700, given the share price at the time. 
 
银行会从天上给冯摘馅饼吗?如果说汇丰在执行冯的转股申请中有误,这一错误也仅仅与服务质量有关,且很容易通过将股票转回汇丰而得以更正。在银行向冯澄清了他对前提议的误解,向他说明银行从未打算白赠给550股免费股票后,冯更加不满。
Such an offer would be deemed as too good to be true. If the bank ever made any mistakes, the mistake was service related in nature which could be easily recovered by transferring the shares back. But Feng was even more enraged when the bank cleared up his misunderstanding over this verbal offer – it never meant to offer him 550 free shares. 
 
第一次投诉
First complaint
 
但冯的股票风波不止于此。
But Feng’s grievances did not stop here. 
 
据冯称,在他的股票被转到PID后,该公司将这些股票出售,然后又用售股款购买了Triumph Ventures Corp之股票,而这些买卖交易都是在他不知情或未授权的情况下进行。
According to Feng, after his shares were transferred to the brokerage firm PID, it sold the shares and then used the proceeds to purchase Triumph Ventures Corp shares. All the transactions were carried out without his awareness or permission, according to Feng.
 
冯在发给经纪人的电子邮件中称:“谁为我做出了这些股票交易决定?为什么在没有得到我的认可的情况下,你的公司随意为我买卖股票?”
“Who made the decisions for me? Why did your firm place orders without my approval?” Feng wrote in an email to the brokerage agent.
 
未经客户授权而进行交易违反了行业规管规则。冯对该公司提起投诉后,他前后收到两张总额达$6,000元的支票。这两张支票均由被控未经冯许可而进行股票交易的PID公司经纪人签发。冯于2月17日收到第一张金额近于$3000元的支票,几天后他又收到了另一张金额为$3000元的支票。
Trading without client permission broke IIROC rules. Feng ‘s complaint against the firm resulted in two cheques being paid to his account, in the total of $6,000. The cheques were issued by the agent in PID who allegedly traded shares without Feng’s approval. He received the first payment of nearly $3000 on Feb. 17, and another payment of $3000 a few days later.  
 
《大中报》了解到这名经纪人近期已经离开了PID公司。截至发稿时她尚未回复《大中报》的咨询电话。
Chinese News found that the agent has recently left PID. She had not returned the phone inquiries by press time.
 
第二次投诉无效 
Second complaint without merit
 
但是冯与汇丰银行的纠纷仍让他无法释怀。他认为如果银行未曾将其股票转出,他本可以在早些时候的股价最高点时将Elan股票出售,从而大赚一笔。
But Feng was still haunted by the dispute with HSBC. He argued that, had the bank stopped the transfer, he would have profited handsomely by selling the shares earlier, when Elan shares had peaked. 
 
气愤而不满的冯向加拿大投资业监管组织(IIROC)对汇丰银行提起投诉。
Feng’s grievance led him to file a complaint with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) against HSBC.
 
但是无论是汇丰银行还是其监管机构都拒绝接受冯的这一投诉理由。在经过数月的调查后,IIROC在2011年初认定冯的投诉无理而将其驳回。
Feng’s argument can hardly be accepted by either the bank or its regulator. In early 2011, after several months’ investigation, IIROC found that Feng’s complaint had no merits and closed his file.
 
IIROC在2011年3月发给冯的一封信中表示,该纠纷涉及在为冯的账户办理转股期间所提供的服务质量问题,但没有任何证据表明银行的行为违反了IIROC的规则。
In a letter sent to Feng in Mar. 2011, IIROC indicated that the matter involved the level of service provided to Feng during the transfer of Feng’s account, but there was no evidence of a breach of IIROC rules. 
 
IIROC的信中还指出,冯所提的转股要求未能及时阻止银行将股票转出,在冯提出要求停止转股时,PID公司已经发出了转股申请。
The letter also pointed out that Feng’s verbal request was made too late to stop transferring the shares out, as the transfer form had already been initiated by PID by that time.
 
因为对IIROC的决定不满,冯又其投诉升级,将汇丰银行告上了小额钱债法庭,寻求$8500元赔偿。
Unsatisfied with the IIROC decision, Feng escalated his claim to the Small Claims Court. He sued HSBC, seeking damages of $8500.   
 
但汇丰银行拒绝了冯的指控,称冯所寻求的损失毫无事实依据,冯也没有受到银行的任何不公平对待或欺骗。
HSBC denied his allegations, stating that Feng did not sustain any alleged damages, nor was he treated unfairly or cheated by the bank.
 
但冯仍然寄希望法庭能作出要求汇丰提供其所寻求的赔偿额的裁决。而实际上冯还应该做好另一种准备迎接法庭裁决,那就是他不但输了官司,法庭还会勒令其支付被告的法律费用。
Feng is still clinging to his hope that the court will award his damages. But he may also have to brace for a different court decision -- instead of winning a judgment, he might be ordered by the court to pay for defendant’s legal costs.

 

 




我们鼓励所有读者在我们的文章和博客上分享意见。We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit the FAQ page for more information.

验证码
请输入验证码