Web Radio
May 28, 2008
» Midday Update

ST Forum
Min: °C Max: °C
» Weather Details
February 15, 2008 Friday
Home > ST Forum > Online Story
Feb 15, 2008
UOB officer failed to mention possibility of annuity plan rejection because of 'quota'
MY HUSBAND visited the UOB Bukit Batok branch on Jan 19 to explore venues to invest some spare cash.

A bank officer there advised him to purchase the 'UOB Life Maxi Annuity' plan.

According to the bank officer, this product is very popular and she urged him to sign up quickly. She also told him that he is entitled to put in an equivalent sum in a two-month S$FD to get preferential interest rates.

He signed up immediately and gave her two cheques - one for the annuity and the other, for the FD. The money from the two cheques was withdrawn from our bank account on Jan 21. On Jan 30, he received (via post) photocopies of the documents he signed, as well as the FD receipt for the two-month FD placement.

The very next day, that is, Jan 31, he received a call from UOB.

He was told that his annuity could not be accepted by the bank because there is a 'quota' and his application was beyond this 'quota'.

Similarly, his FD placement had to be rejected because this FD could only be placed if the annuity is accepted.

The bank then refunded the money to him in two cheque payments; with the first cheque issued after cheque clearing hours on Jan 31 and the subsequent cheque received by post in early-February.

I am surprised by the actions of the bank for the following reasons:

1.Firstly, if there is a 'quota', the bank officer attending to him on Jan 19 should have disclosed to him that there is a chance his application will be rejected. He can then make an informed decision whether he wanted to take the 'chance' with UOB or invest his money elsewhere.

2.Secondly, why would the bank deduct the money immediately instead of internally checking if the 'quota' had already been met?

3.Thirdly, why issue the FD receipt if this is again subject to some 'quota'?

4.Lastly, why did it take the bank 10 days before it telephoned my husband to inform him about the rejected application?

As innocent consumers, we feel extremely vulnerable that banks are high-handedly dictating their terms to consumers and withholding information that could impact on consumers' decisions.

Could the relevant authorities comment on this?

Ruth Lim Chiu Mei (Ms)

Best viewed at 1152x864 resolution with IE 6.0 or FireFox 2.0 and above
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. Regn No. 198402868E | Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions