ING Customer’s Frustration Highlights Flaws in Bank Fraud Processes
Katie McMaster, a long-time customer of ING, recently experienced significant distress when her bank accounts were suddenly blocked due to what the bank termed "suspicious activity." This incident has sparked a conversation about the need for banks to reassess their fraud prevention measures.
Residing in Melbourne, McMaster reported that she was informed by ING’s fraud department via email that her account had been suspended. Upon reaching out to the bank for clarification, she was told she would have to wait for an email response from the fraud team, which could take up to two business days. Frustrated, she noted, “I just thought that was insane… especially when you’re trying to get in touch with the fraud department.”
To verify her identity, McMaster was instructed to provide sensitive personal information—including her full name, date of birth, and mobile number—via email, a process she deemed highly insecure. Following this, she received a verification text and was asked to upload identification. However, after fulfilling these requirements, she heard nothing further from the bank.
During this time, she was left without access to her funds or ability to withdraw cash, relying instead on her credit card, which ING had not blocked, despite the circumstances. “It was stressful in the fact that I could obviously see the balance, but the available balance was zero,” she explained.
It wasn’t until late on Thursday that McMaster received an email requesting clarification on two transactions labelled as suspicious: her regular monthly salary and a $300 payment from a friend for Usher concert tickets. Upon verifying these transactions, she finally managed to speak with someone from ING’s fraud department, who resolved the issue and unblocked her accounts immediately.
The bank later acknowledged that McMaster’s experience was regrettable. A spokesperson asserted that safeguarding customers is paramount, explaining that temporary account holds are implemented to protect customer funds pending verification of suspicious transactions. They emphasised that identity verification should be secure, involving biometrics and existing identification records.
This incident resonated with many, as McMaster shared her experience online. Numerous responses from Australians echoed similar frustrations, recounting their own stories of blocked accounts and the consequent feelings of vulnerability. “You feel so vulnerable not being able to get access to money!” one commenter shared.
Many expressed discomfort with the bank’s processes, particularly the requirement to send sensitive information via email. A user stated, “I’d refuse to send personal details over email; that’s ridiculous!” highlighting the unease around the security of such personal information.
In the wake of her ordeal, McMaster is now contemplating switching banks and considers diversifying her financial institutions to avoid similar situations in the future. “The main concern is the verification process," she stressed, advocating for banks to rethink their protocols, especially the submission of sensitive details through unsecured channels.
She concluded by urging fellow Australians to remain vigilant against potential scams and to verify the legitimacy of any communications they receive from their banks.
Final Thoughts
McMaster’s story illustrates a critical need for banks like ING to improve their fraud detection and customer communication processes. As digital banking continues to grow, the conversation surrounding secure customer service practices is more relevant than ever.
