logo

online.fsm.am
Bank
A 2017 claim lodged against a bank for a disagreed amount of liabilities under the loan agreement

According to the Claim the Client has been a customer of the Bank. Due to the Client’s liabilities fallen outstanding, the Bank has applied for judicial protection. Subject to the court decision, a total of AMD 295,199.20 has been confiscated from the Client in favor of the Bank. As the Client noted, the court issued a writ of execution to the effect of which the Client paid AMD 297,000. Following this, the Client says, the Bank issued a statement according to which an obligation outstanding on a loan of AMD 220,973.30 was still due for the Client in respect of the above liability. The Client has turned to the Bank with a request to have the liabilities recalculated but the Bank refused to do so, in response. In a letter addressed to the Mediator, the Client demanded that the Bank perform recalculation of the liabilities and avoid calling for receiving more money from him, as it does not fall under the court’s judgment and that the obligation under the said judgment has already been fulfilled by him.  After investigating the claim the Mediator  has made a decision to turn down the Client’s claim against the Bank. Read more...

A 2017 claim lodged against a bank for a case of card fraud

According to the Claim the contract signed between the Client and the Bank has provided the Client with a MasterCard Gold. The Client has received short messages from the ArCa, a local payment system and settlement service, according to which many transactions have been made through his account, for which he has been charged approximately USD 2,700 from his account. The Client noted that he has not executed such transactions nor had he an idea of who could have done so. To find out what happened, the Client filed an application to the Bank asking them to clarify the situation and recompense the sums charged from him. In response to the Client’s request, the Bank agreed to refund USD 223.86 but refused refunding the rest sum of USD 2,476, reasoning that these transactions were made in compliance with the safety rules. The Client noted that he did not agree with the Bank’s decision, as he did not execute the other transactions, either, further claiming that the sums were deducted from his account without his knowledge and will. The Client filed a complaint, but received a response of rejection. In a letter to the Mediator, the Client demanded that the Bank refund him USD 2,476 which has been unreasonably charged from his account. After investigating the claim the Mediator has decided to end the review of the claim, as a reconciliation covenant has been reached between him and the Bank . Read more...

A 2017 claim lodged against a bank for disagreement with tariffs set for cash withdrawal from a payment card account

According to the Claim the contract on issuance and usage of payment card signed between the Client and the Bank has provided the Client with a Visa Electron. When attempting a card transaction at a branch office of the Bank, the Client was advised by the staff that, for cash withdrawal, a 1% tariff rate would be applied to that transaction. For clarification, the Client took an account statement for the whole period to find out that the Bank has always applied the same tariff of 1%. The Client voices disagreement with the above mentioned actions of the Bank, as upon signing the contract he has been informed of a 0.3% tariff rate applied to a cash withdrawal transaction. Moreover, neither the contract nor the Bank’s website have mentioned about the 1% tariff rate for such transaction. The Client filed a complaint to the Bank but did not receive any response therefrom. In a letter to the Mediator, the Client demanded that the Bank refund the fees overcharged. After investigating the claim the Mediator has made a decision to reject the Client’s claim against the Bank. Read more...

A 2017 claim lodged against a bank for failure to provide the deposit amount in favor of the third party

According to the claim the Client is a third party under the deposit contract in whose favor the deposit has been invested. The depositor died, and the Client applied to the Bank after his death to receive the deposit in favor of him but received a rejection with a reasoning that he would need to present a notarized certificate of inheritance. The Client does not agree with the Bank’s decision as the deposit has been invested in favor of him and he has no relation to the inheritance. The Client noted that he is now an adult and wants to take the deposit which has been invested in his favor, so the Bank has no legal footing to reject. The Client has filed a complaint to the Bank and received their rejection. In a letter to the Mediator, the Client demanded that the Bank return the amount of deposit plus any interests accrued thereon. After investigating the claim the Mediator has decided to partially satisfy the Client’s claim against the Bank. Read more ...

A 2017 claim lodged against a bank for a problem with cash withdrawal from the card

According to the Claim the Client is a cardholder of the Bank. In March this year, the Client wanted to withdraw cash from an ATM near the railway station “Sasuntsi Davit”, but the ATM returned the payment card without giving the requested cash. Waiting for another minute, the Client left the ATM, however, thinking that the ATM did not have enough money to dispense. A few minutes later, the Client received an SMS message that the cash was withdrawn from his account, in the amount requested at the ATM. On the same day, the Client checked the account balance with another ATM of the Bank and found that it had reduced to the amount of withdrawal requested at the ATM.The Client has filed a claim to the Bank and received a written response by which the Bank turned down the claim. In a letter to the Mediator, the Client demanded that the Bank recompense the loss incurred by returning the above mentioned amount. After investigating the claim the Mediator has made a decision to satisfy the Client’s claim against the Bank. Read more...