What a great story.
-
What a great story.
Scammers accessed Age pensioner Ian Williams’ debit card details & withdrew $1,338, which is 5.5% of his annual income. He provided proof to his bank (NAB) but they did not accept responsibility or refund his money.
So he sued the bank - on his own, without legal representation - for 5.5% of their annual profit. That’s $379,005,000.
The bank did not respond to the case. He won.
On appeal to the Supreme Court the case was dismissed on technicalities & Mr Williams ordered to pay the bank’s legal costs.
Only after the story was widely publicised did the bank do what they should have done from the start: refund Mr Williams’ $1,338 & offer him an apology. They also waived their claim to costs.
Dragged kicking & screaming to basic ethical business practice. It’s a good look, NAB. We see you.
-
What a great story.
Scammers accessed Age pensioner Ian Williams’ debit card details & withdrew $1,338, which is 5.5% of his annual income. He provided proof to his bank (NAB) but they did not accept responsibility or refund his money.
So he sued the bank - on his own, without legal representation - for 5.5% of their annual profit. That’s $379,005,000.
The bank did not respond to the case. He won.
On appeal to the Supreme Court the case was dismissed on technicalities & Mr Williams ordered to pay the bank’s legal costs.
Only after the story was widely publicised did the bank do what they should have done from the start: refund Mr Williams’ $1,338 & offer him an apology. They also waived their claim to costs.
Dragged kicking & screaming to basic ethical business practice. It’s a good look, NAB. We see you.
@26pglt
The hero we need, for real. -
What a great story.
Scammers accessed Age pensioner Ian Williams’ debit card details & withdrew $1,338, which is 5.5% of his annual income. He provided proof to his bank (NAB) but they did not accept responsibility or refund his money.
So he sued the bank - on his own, without legal representation - for 5.5% of their annual profit. That’s $379,005,000.
The bank did not respond to the case. He won.
On appeal to the Supreme Court the case was dismissed on technicalities & Mr Williams ordered to pay the bank’s legal costs.
Only after the story was widely publicised did the bank do what they should have done from the start: refund Mr Williams’ $1,338 & offer him an apology. They also waived their claim to costs.
Dragged kicking & screaming to basic ethical business practice. It’s a good look, NAB. We see you.
@26pglt I would have been more inclined to believe the Bank's apology, if as well as the original $1,338, the bank had doubled the amount to add meaning to their apology - that really would have cost them nothing.
-
What a great story.
Scammers accessed Age pensioner Ian Williams’ debit card details & withdrew $1,338, which is 5.5% of his annual income. He provided proof to his bank (NAB) but they did not accept responsibility or refund his money.
So he sued the bank - on his own, without legal representation - for 5.5% of their annual profit. That’s $379,005,000.
The bank did not respond to the case. He won.
On appeal to the Supreme Court the case was dismissed on technicalities & Mr Williams ordered to pay the bank’s legal costs.
Only after the story was widely publicised did the bank do what they should have done from the start: refund Mr Williams’ $1,338 & offer him an apology. They also waived their claim to costs.
Dragged kicking & screaming to basic ethical business practice. It’s a good look, NAB. We see you.
@26pglt really?
-
What a great story.
Scammers accessed Age pensioner Ian Williams’ debit card details & withdrew $1,338, which is 5.5% of his annual income. He provided proof to his bank (NAB) but they did not accept responsibility or refund his money.
So he sued the bank - on his own, without legal representation - for 5.5% of their annual profit. That’s $379,005,000.
The bank did not respond to the case. He won.
On appeal to the Supreme Court the case was dismissed on technicalities & Mr Williams ordered to pay the bank’s legal costs.
Only after the story was widely publicised did the bank do what they should have done from the start: refund Mr Williams’ $1,338 & offer him an apology. They also waived their claim to costs.
Dragged kicking & screaming to basic ethical business practice. It’s a good look, NAB. We see you.
@26pglt hang on. why is the bank exempt from the fucking law?
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
