Our banking laws allow banks to charge for service rendered as they are categorised as service providers for banking matters to the public. As a consumer, we should hold no qualms about paying for the service rendered, as through the service we gain some advantage.

Examples of services utilised most by the common man-on-the street are for an ATM card, replacement for a lost ATM card or a damaged ATM card , the use of cheque books, transferring money etc.

But since Bank Negara approved the charges by banks for all these services, it is obvious that the banks have taken advantage and started charging for very little service they render including the photostating of documents.

But the question thrown is how much is the service worth and what professional level of expertise is applied to the said service? I would like to talk about disservice by the banks and below are some of my personal experiences.

I went to my bank to report my lost ATM card. The officer attending to me made an error when punching in the details of my account and could not get the correction done. A senior officer attended to the problem but still could not get it rectified. I was told to come back the next day.

Now, isn't this a case of disservice by the bank? I as a customer had to take leave or excuse myself from work, spend time, waste petrol and pay parking charges all because of this ‘disservice' by the bank.

The second incident happened when I wanted to withdraw my EPF money to reduce my housing loan. The EPF office asked me to get some necessary documents from the bank which I did and I was charged for this service by the bank.

When I went back with the completed letters and forms to the EPF office, I was told that the bank had provided me with the wrong form and as the story goes, I had to go back to the bank for the correct form. Mind you I was again charged for the service.

And, of course, the one worst experience involving banks would be when you take a drive through the town and the traffic only to find the ATM machine ‘out of service'.

What I am trying to emphasise is that why did Bank Negara approve these service charges without looking into the aspect of these services turning into a ‘disservice'.

What I would like to suggest is that wherever or whenever any charge for service by a bank is mentioned, there is a salient clause for possible ‘disservice'. It's time Bank Negara look into this and the suggestion is that the penalty should be ten times the amount charged for the service.

The next question which I would like to throw is that can any one or any institution assume on another person's behalf. The answer is obvious, it's a ‘no'.

But notably Bank Negara has given RHB Bank the right to do so. In the case of a new cheque book, if the customer does not collect his cheque book within one month, the bank assumes that the request is cancelled and charges the customer RM25 for the cancellation of the cheque book.

Mind you the current account is still active. Firstly who in their right mind would apply for a cheque book and then have it cancelled while the account is still active? RHB may cancel the chequu book if the account is closed but not otherwise.

Why do you assume whatever assumptions you want to assume? Your assumptions are to your customers' detriment for the sole purpose of ripping off your customer. The rule is that if I apply for any service in writing, I should cancel it in writing too.

Bank Negara, please come and check on the banks' behaviour ant attitude. I strongly suggest again a ‘disservice penalty' for any service charged. In other words, a penalty for services promised and not delivered.