Money (That's What I Want)

There aren't many upsides to having a not very active bank account, but at least you don't get phoned up by the bank all the time (actually I did the other day, but they haven't troubled to phone back). But my wife does.

Which is interesting. We haven't given them this phone number. And it's not in the book under the name they have. So how did they get hold of it? They have had to actively seek it out .... he doesn't know that we KNOW that.

My wife asked them. He didn't know (I didn't get the name clearly but I don't think it was James this time, it has been him several times before when we lived elsewhere). Or he wouldn't say. We'll call that a fudge rather than anything else. But the lies do come later.

We asked him to delete the number from his records. He said he would. I believe that to be a lie. Even if he wanted to or was able to, his managers wouldn't let him. Because then they couldn't pester us.

We tried the being nice "we know you've been told by your manager ... you've got a horrible job .... but we don't want phone calls" etc. No good. He persists even when it's clear we have no interest in what he wants to say.
He asks if we are satisfied with the service we get from the bank. We say no, the major problem being that they phone us up out of the blue when we do not want it. He doesn't take the hint.

We explained that we know that they phone up because they want to interest us in new "products". He says they don't. So that is lie number 2. Much as it would be lovely to believe what he says - that he sits around thinking about us and worrying that we are not happy with our bank account - it is difficult to believe that the bank would under-employ him in that way. We know he has to make a certain amount of phone calls to show that he is trying to sell some new product (God help him if he has a target quota of positive responses, he's on a loser at this house).

At least this time he didn't try to say - as James once did - that it is not secure having money in their bank and we should move it (over the telephone, for goodness' sake, who the hell is this man, what proof of who he is can he give us?) to an account in which we can't just get at OUR money, we "just" have to phone up to organise it, how is that an improved service?, when the clear answer to insecurity is we should take the whole lot out of this insecure bank. We like having our money on call without having to phone up and all the identity checks that would involve. Oh that time we had "too much" money. He'd sharp complain if we had too little - oh no that's right he'd actually love it as then he can charge us for an overdraft; no we're not falling for that one. We will keep a sufficient float, thank you, he doesn't know our circumstances and we aren't telling him.

Even his own words don't make logical sense, we are doing well he says, so why do we need something different? There was a lot more that was self-contradictory but mercifully I've forgotten it.

Apart from the bloody cheek of the banks trying to advise us how to manage our money, when they can't manage their own. Socks under the bed full of money have never looked so attractive.