BSP, put yourself in the customer’s shoes when the manager’s husband threatens the customer’s boss for lodging a customer feedback to BSP asking for polite courtesy from the manager when the customer visits the bank. BSP, wear their shoes three months later when they enter the bank for work, immediately come face to face with the manager, and they say a friendly ‘Kia Orana’ which is met with a hostile retort in front of other customers. Again the customer asks for a polite reply. Four hours later uniformed police arrive at the customer’s workplace, with a ‘harassment’ complaint laid by the manager, and according to police with the BSP boss’s approval.
A lawyer says, “If an employee is in uniform, at work, they represent the employer, therefore BSP has laid the complaint/charge. Feeling intimidated wearing these shoes?
An investigation found the complaint never warranted police involvement, case closed, customer’s name cleared. The customer speaks to BSP asking for courtesy and respect and is told “It has nothing to do with BSP because it is a family land matter.” So if you are related to a BSP employee, they can be rude, threatening, lay false charges, and intimidate you when you do your banking.
BSP says the manager has completed customer service and CI Kia Orana training.
The customer says there is no family land issue, never has been. They say four years ago, they were told the manager’s grandmother and customer’s father are siblings therefore family, with little to no contact thereafter.
The customer says they go to the bank for business, not personal reasons, but due to the continual display of bullying, discriminatory behaviour towards them, they close their account. BSP does nothing.
Now wear the customer’s shoes six months later, taking the employer’s banking, come face to face with the manager once again in uniform, the customer greets them with a friendly ‘Kia Orana’ and is immediately threatened with arrest.
Throughout, the customer has remained friendly, has used proper protocol of customer feedback with the bank, and despite all reasonable requests no behaviour change or apology has been displayed by the manager. Reverse the roles: the manager would be treated with courtesy and respect, by the customer in their workplace.
Why this letter you ask? Put yourself in the customer’s shoes, and after all the above, the customer asked the bank again for a simple “hello” and the manager responds by calling the family chairperson discrediting the customer. BSP you said “A happy customer tells five others, but an unhappy customer tells 20” Your lack of conviction to your ‘customer service policies created an unhappy customer.
BSP you recently had a customer feedback survey, you have a customer service desk, you have a rolling video at the bank line introducing your manager’ by photo and name, so we can relate to them. All of this is pointless if the customer is not permitted to give feedback. Your frontline staff on the ground floor are great promoters of customer service. How differently would you respond if a teller displayed the manager’s behaviour?
If this was America the lawyers would have a field day, but this is not America, it is a small island and the chances of being related to someone is high.
The customer is not always right, but they are the reason your business exists.
BSP you have some very good community initiatives but allowing ‘jungle law’ behaviour does not display professionalism.
Wear these shoes
(Name and address supplied)
Editor: BSP country manager David Street responds—
“We unreservedly apologise for any frustration and personal angst caused by the mentioned events. BSP strives to achieve professional and friendly service to all customers at all times. We would like to extend an open invitation to sit down and discuss the issues and the events and thus achieve an amicable resolution.”