Dear talk: The Consumer Council joins the class against Mizrahi-Tefahot

The class action lawsuit was filed in February this year by a bank customer who was required to pay a fee of NIS 101 for "retrieving a recorded call" that previously existed with the bank.

The Consumer Council notes that this is not just Mizrahi-Tefahot, but a phenomenon that encompasses many businesses and is intended to prevent consumer complaints.

Between Ashkenazi

12/04/2022

Tuesday, 12 April 2022, 10:46 Updated: 11:11

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

• Share on general

• Comments

  Comments

The Israeli Consumer Council has asked to join as a friend of the court in a class action lawsuit against Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank, which charges NIS 101 for sending a recorded call to its customers, instead of the old NIS 20 equivalent to 2 agorot today.

In February, a class action lawsuit was filed against the bank after a customer asked to receive a call recording after realizing, he claimed, that his account terms did not match those promised to him.

The customer is required to pay a fee of NIS 101 for receiving the call he had with the bank's representatives.

The lawsuit claims that charging a fee for "retrieving a recorded call" (as the service is called in the bank's tariff) is against the law.

The group on whose behalf the application was submitted are the bank's customers who have been charged a fee for retrieving a recording of a conversation with the bank in the last seven years.

Good to know (promoted)

Defeat the pain without fear: B-Cure laser in an unprecedented trial operation

Served on behalf of Bee Cure Laser

Mizrahi Tefahot Bank.

The lawsuit was filed against him, but the Consumer Council claims it is much broader (Photo: ShutterStock)

Victims of the wrong procedure: the elderly, new immigrants and soldiers

The Consumer Council notes that it is not just Mizrahi-Tefahot.

According to them, the council receives many inquiries from citizens who complain that businesses pose difficulties to them when they are asked to recreate calls in which so-called conditions or prices were promised that are different from those actually charged.

According to customers, as stated by the Consumer Council, some businesses charge an exorbitant price for the call retrieval request, some require them to physically come to the business to listen to the call and some simply refuse the request.

Data from the Consumer Council show that in the past year and a half, over 10,000 complaints have been received from consumers who have made a telephone transaction.

The majority of the victims, according to the authority, are weakened consumers: senior citizens or new immigrants who find it difficult to prove their claims to the deception that necessitates the cancellation of a transaction.

Another interesting group of casualties is discharged soldiers, who are exposed to aggressive marketing by dealers who offer courses in exchange for the deposit money, but do not live up to the promises made orally.

In sales centers, we are sometimes sold promises that do not materialize in reality, but those who want to recreate the sales call, run into difficulties (Photo: ShutterStock)

Public right cannot involve an exorbitant fee

The Consumer Council also states that the high commission requirement is against the law and the public has the right to review information about it, including recorded telephone conversations, correspondence, chat and any information stored digitally, in accordance with the provisions of the Banking Law.

The bank's policy of charging consumers an excessive fee for reviewing information about themselves, the authority claims, deters them from exercising their rights and prevents them from actually paying for a service that should be provided almost for free.

The fee for requesting information today stands at a total of 20 old shekels, the value of which is about 2 cents.

The Consumer Council is asking the court to determine compensation not only for consumers who paid the bank the required amount of commission, but also for all the bank's customers who refrained from the commission and waived their request for information.

The Consumer Council also stated that they strongly oppose compensation given by way of public donation and hold that the bank has all the means and information to locate anyone who has applied for a refusal and refuses, as well as the number of those who abandoned their demand for inspection after being required to pay for it.

The Consumer Council stated: "Listening to a telephone conversation is a consumer right that allows the consumer to settle a dispute between him and the dealer easily and efficiently. ".

• Of money

Tags

• Mizrahi Bank

• Mizrahi Bank

• The Consumers Council

• Class action