WELLS FARGO, from page 1 Customers find satisfaction through the court system
One way to guarantee customer service at Wells Fargo may be to sue it.
That’s what Larry Nagler did after Wells Fargo cashed his check destined for World Savings and Loan as a mortgage payment for his west Los Angeles home.
A division of Wells Fargo conceded last week that the bank cashed the check with no explanation. Bank officials didn’t know who did it because it wasn’t endorsed.
But the bank refused to do anything about it so Nagler sued.
Nagler’s plight after Wells Fargo lost his $2,500 mortgage payment illustrates what may be a growing trend among customers of large companies with unfavorable customer service records. The customer may get better service by suing a bank than waiting for the company to find the time or inclination to help.
Nagler mailed the payment, drawn on his Bank of America account, to World Savings and Loan last November. Somehow, the check landed in a Wells Fargo branch in Denver, where it was cashed. Nagler doesn’t have an account with Wells Fargo.
Nagler then claimed he found an impenetrable wall around Wells Fargo customer service representatives. After months during which there was no movement on his request for reimbursement, Nagler sued in Santa Monica small claims court.
What Nagler said about Wells Fargo you’ll likely never see in the bank’s ads.
“They will not talk to you, period,” Nagler said. “The absolute arrogance of dealing with this bank is unbelievable.”
This past March, Wells Fargo asked that he send photocopies of the check, but declined to pay for the courier, Nagler said.
It wasn’t until Nagler sued Wells Fargo that the bank reimbursed him. But it took four months to extract the money from the bank’s jaws. Nagler still pushed the suit in order to win interest during the period the money was lost.
“It cost me $5,000 to pay $2,500,” Nagler estimated. “It’s impossible to talk to anyone at Wells Fargo. They danced me around for months.”
Even though Nagler eventually won satisfaction, the story is a cautionary one for jilted customers because it’s difficult for them to recover funds for the time and inconvenience of taking a stalled company to court.
In his suit, Nagler asked for the value of the time he had to take away from work while sorting out the quagmire. He also sought lost interest and a sum for general inconvenience. But all he got was an award of interest and court costs.
An award of general damages against the bank would require proof of such damages, small claims pro tem judge Scott Houtz ruled last week. He noted he couldn’t award damages to Nagler just because he got the run-around. However, he did award Nagler four months worth of interest on $2,500 at 5 percent.
“Although it may be very unsatisfactory, all the court can award you is the $40 and court costs,” Houtz said.
Cindy Chavez, a paralegal who works in the Wells Fargo law department, said it was difficult to track down Nagler’s money because it was lost between Nagler’s bank and Wells Fargo.
“I couldn’t see how Wells Fargo was involved,” she said. “It’s an internal process between the banks and it was (Bank of America, on which the check was drawn) and Wells Fargo working behind the scenes.”
Wells Fargo never offered to pay the interest on Nagler’s $2,500 and it appears the bank didn’t utilize any of its customer satisfaction policies as a goodwill gesture to Nagler.
Chavez — or anyone at Wells Fargo — didn’t have a clue where the money was stashed during the four months it wasn’t accounted for.
If there is one reason suing a large institution works, it is adverse publicity. Banks and airlines spend millions of dollars on image-related advertising bent on building the public’s trust, and a suit such as Nagler’s represents a public relations gaffe. Because it costs corporations more to “buy” new customers than to keep their existing ones, they feel motivated to keep their customers happy.
PULLQUOTE: “The absolute arrogance of dealing with this bank is unbelievable.” Larry Nagler, plaintiff
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 22, 2002. Read the original PDF.