Hostage

"On a bank and its anointed insurance firm"

I first heard of tied-up loans during a congressional hearing concerning government infrastructure projects that end up utilizing the same set of contractors, consultants, etc. When asked by lawmakers how was this possible, representatives from the Department of Public Works and Highways revealed that these were conditions set by the lenders—IMFWB, ADB and other countries, for the government to avail itself of the loan.

But then, this is the first time I heard of a car loan from a bank that imposes a pre-condition obligating the borrower to utilize not just a bank-accredited insurance company but rather a specific insurance firm, leaving the borrower with no choice but to heed to the bank’s condition.

A reader narrated to us how he was made to suffer because of this bank’s pre-condition. We are not sure whether this is the bank’s official policy or just the initiative of the agent. Anyway, here’s how his story goes.

In December 2017, our reader said that Security Bank approved their car loan, on the condition that they get a five-year lock-in contract with FPG Insurance. Of course, they had to agree to the pre-condition so that their loan gets to be approved. Also, according to him, he doesn’t expect to encounter any problem with that.

And he seemed to be right that time. For in May 2018, after a having a minor car accident, he was able to process his insurance claim in just ten days, courtesy of a certain Melo Rivarez of FPG Insurance.

On the second time he was to use his car insurance, the whole scenery changed as according to him, he was given the run-around.

According to our reader, he submitted all the documentary requirements for his insurance claim last Sept. 9. While he was able to get a reply from Rivarez on the same day, acknowledging receipt of the documents. The latter, unfortunately got sick, thus his claim was endorsed to a certain Patrick Tolentino.

After 10 days, our reader made a follow up with Tolentino, who told him he will provide an update the following day. But four days later, he still had not received any message from Tolentino, prompting him to make a call, which Tolentino, our reader claims, deliberately ignored. Tolentino allegedly refused to answer his direct and local number.

On Sept. 27, our reader made a breakthrough, reaching a certain Rochelle Indiana who acknowledged (again) the receipt of his requirement, at the same time assuring him she would personally remind Tolentino to address his query and update him.

But as of this week, our reader claims he still has to received a feedback either from Tolentino or Indiana.

Our reader claims he has been religious in meeting his monthly amortization for his car loan and even that of his insurance policy. So, why, he asks, is he being made to suffer because of the bank’s pre-condition on the choice of car insurance firm?  

We believe that not only does that constitute unfair trade competition, but it also hold the borrower hostage to whichever insurance firm Security Banks imposes on its borrowers. “Magtiis kayo” seems to be the motto of Security Bank for its borrowers who want to avail of their insurance claims from the bank’s chosen one—FPG Insurance. It seems Security Bank doesn’t care a bit what kind of service FPG is according the bank’s clients. After all, the loan has been made, the bank is earning interest from that loan, and the loan is insured by no less than its chosen one.

Before it starts losing clients due to its chosen insurance firm’s incompetence, Security Bank better address this issue. If it cannot compel FPG to provide better services to the clients they refer to them, then, there’s no other recourse but to kick them out.

This space is open should the bank or its insurance provider want to make a clarification on the matter.