Ms. Ip maintained a long standing customer relationship with a bank. She invested in bonds only as she preferred fixed income products. A few months ago, Ms. Ip discovered that one financial product she purchased was not a bond but an insurance product with no guaranteed return. She claimed that the bank staff had told her that the nature of the product was similar to bond and that she would receive a return of 6% of the principal amount at maturity. However, when the product matured, Ms. Ip found that the return was less than 6%. She thought that the bank staff had misled her. She lodged a written complaint to the bank and claimed the difference between what she believed had been promised by the bank staff and the actual return.
After internal investigation, the bank replied to Ms. Ip that the staff has explained the product nature clearly to her and there was no mis-selling. Ms. Ip and the bank could not come to an agreement on the case. Ms. Ip then made an application for mediation at the FDRC.
The mediator facilitated communications between both parties. The bank representative stepped into Ms. Ip’s shoes and tried to understand her concern with genuine sincerity. Ms. Ip appreciated the bank representative for his sincerity in listening to her and his efforts to try to resolve the dispute.
Ms. Ip revealed that she was a pet lover. The bank representative generated a very creative settlement option which incorporated the figures 23 and 8 which, when pronounced in Mandarin, resembled the pronunciation of the words “愛心 pet” (love for pet). Ms. Ip praised the bank representative for having such a sweet and creative idea and the case was settled to the satisfaction of both parties.
(The case studies are based on actual FDRC cases. Various information including names of claimants, financial institutions and their staff, actual claim and settlement amounts have been altered to protect confidentiality of parties.)