Dear Editor,
There are two troubling customer service issues to which I wish to draw attention. One is about the Republic Bank Limited ATM machines and the other is what I believe to be an illegal policy at the Shell Gas station on Camp Street.
The G$5,000 note has been in circulation in Guyana for some years now and whereas Scotiabank has for some time been offering larger withdrawal amounts at some of its machines in Georgetown, Republic Bank Limited has stuck to the G$30,000 limit per withdrawal. This would be quite okay except that each time one makes a withdrawal at the RBL machines, there is a service charge. This means that customers continue to pay Republic Bank Limited for whatever limitations the bank has failed to fix in its machines or more plausibly, because the bank wants to take more money from its customers. The latter explanation is my opinion on the matter since the machines do in fact distribute the G$5,000 notes.
Whereas in the past, the machines would give thirty G$1,000 notes in one withdrawal, it now gives a combination of G$5,000 and G$1,000 notes amounting to the same total. The G$30,000 ceiling is therefore not a matter of the machines’ limited capacity to expel a larger number of notes at once. Why can someone withdraw G$70,000 at once at some Scotiabank machines for example, but a maximum of only G$30,000 at any Republic Bank machine? Why has it taken the bank so long to adjust the withdrawal limit per transaction? I believe that the bank owes the Guyanese public an explanation and a commitment to treating customers fairly.
It may be that this problem exists at other banks, but I don’t have first-hand experience with them. Insofar as this holds true for other banks, my position on the matter in relation to them is the same.
Last Friday evening (October 18, 2019), I had the unfortunate experience of stopping at the Shell gas station on Camp Street to purchase a replacement bulb for the headlamp of my car. I parked on the premises, popped the hood and proceeded to the store to make the purchase. I was informed at the counter that once I purchase the bulb, I couldn’t return it and I was also told that the store does not have the facility to test the bulb before selling it to me. Furthermore, it made no difference that I would be testing it just outside the door on my car. I was naturally floored by this and contended that such a policy could not be legal. I protested its application as a general principle and implored the workers to think about what such a policy would mean. As one might expect, all they could do was repeat the policy given that they had no power to intervene.
After speaking to someone on the phone, the supervisor on site was quite assertive about the righteousness of the policy and enlightened me about my option to source the bulb elsewhere if I was uncomfortable. I found this to also be inappropriate given that the store has a licence to operate in the country. Wouldn’t it be discriminatory to say such a thing to a customer? Given my feeling that this is an evil policy, I made the purchase in the hope that the bulb wouldn’t work so that I could test the resolve of the store. I was ultimately disappointed and drove off with my headlamp in full working condition.
I draw attention to this issue at the Shell gas station on Camp Street and ask the authorities to look into this matter on behalf of customers who are subjected each day to illegal and discriminatory policies.
Yours faithfully,
Troy Thomas, Ph.D.
