Security standard ’a matter for courts‘

ACCUSING a supplier of negligence is easy; proving it is a lot harder — and costly.

Stanley Becker and Daniäl Cordier are in for a rough ride in their planned legal battle with Standard Bank.

They want the bank to compensate their losses — physically for Cordier, who was shot three times on bank property, and financially for Becker, who lost R85 000 in the robbery.

Becker, who lives in Fresnaye, Cape Town, says it’s about the principle, not the money.

“The bank’s general demeanour and conduct during this whole episode has been one of self-interest and protection at all costs,” said Becker. “It can’t get away with this.” Well, maybe it can. What is a bank’s responsibility to its customers? Is it okay for a supplier, as is alleged in this case, to fail to assist someone in urgent need, someone likely to die if not offered sanctuary?

Is it right for a bank to protect its staff and other customers potentially at risk? Many would argue staff are equally, if not more, worthy of protecting.

And surely, if Cordier had managed to get through the revolving doors, the gunmen could have followed him inside, threatening even more people? These are tricky ethical and largely speculative questions that are not easily answered — unlike the issue of no security guard.

Becker and Cordier believe a guard would have thwarted the attack, or at least prevented the second and third shots.

Is a bank under obligation to have a guard at its doors?

Not necessarily, according to the office of the banking ombudsman. Security measures, including guards, had “positive and negative aspects”, it said. It pointed out that more armed guards might deter criminals, but they could also just encourage larger and more well-armed gangs to rob the bank. Guards could also encourage robbers to rather shoot first, which could endanger more customers.

The ombudsman’s office also said that using more security guards could hinder day-to-day banking to such a degree that it became impractical.

Ombudsman Clive Pillay described the men’s complaint as a “difficult one even to give a general statement on, let alone rule on it”.

A claim like this was dependent on establishing negligence on the part of the bank or its employee, he said.

“In the absence of proof of unequivocal gross negligence on the part of the bank or bank employee, we would probably suggest that the matter is more appropriate for court . . . where experts in banking security can be called to testify and be crossexamined.”

The Code of Banking Practice commits banks to providing “reliable” banking and payment systems and taking “reasonable care” to make such services safe and secure.

A bank is only responsible for money once it has been accepted by a teller and the deposit slip stamped and signed to confirm the amount, the office advises.

Becker and Cordier feel they’ve been dismissed by the bank. “It has never made any inquiries about Daniäl, has never offered an apology or

Experts in banking security can be called to testify

shown remorse and has never made any reference to what measures it intends to introduce to prevent incidences of this nature,” said Becker.

It’s concerning that no bank employee has ever spoken to Cordier or interviewed him about what happened.

Complicating matters is that, at no stage in Becker’s correspondence with the bank, were any of the allegations dis- puted. All it did was deny liability and close its file.

I received the same limited response. It made no attempt to correct the version of events I’d provided, except to deny it was liable. When I later asked it to confirm or deny it locked the door on Cordier, it denied the allegation but offered nothing else.

When questioned again on Cordier’s claim of a locked door, it admitted the door had been locked at 10.29am, with the incident having taken place at 10.24am.

Was this before or after the shots were fired, I had to ask. Five minutes afterwards, I was told. No elaboration.

Considering there were three separate gunshots, I probed the bank on the sequence of shots and the timing. It was only then revealed that the door had been locked after the police, already on the scene, advised it to do so. I hope the court has better luck.

Tune in to Power FM 98.7’s ‘Power Breakfast’ at 8.50am tomorrow to hear more from Megan