I had a telephone conversation with one of their woman representatives about the co-operatives email address and that I wanted her to give it to myself. Instead of doing what I asked she repeatedly tried to scam myself for my details before she would even bother to deal with the request; but for something that does not require a login as I was not requesting anything to be done with the account, I know this is not needed and refused to succumb. Nonetheless she tried and tried and tried. She then out of the blue made the claim that she found myself 'threatening'; I was a little surprised, and asked how so? She then changed the subject to avoid answering the question citing her need to get a supervisor as a diversionary tactic. But I kept pressing for an answer as to why she found myself aggressive, to which I got no answer.
I then made a written complaint. the first response was basically a switch around where they looked for something to blame myself, and then turn my complaint into a complaint about myself - but what I brought to them was not answered, and they also found that they had done nothing wrong as part of their standard process.
I made another complaint about the handling of the complaint. The point was taken that my complaint had been switched to a complaint about myself, but then the same result ie they have done nothing wrong was achieved via a different method.
They did backwardly admit by including the woman calling myself 'threatening' that the incident did take place, but you have to laugh at the reason why she did not change the subject that was made "...strictly speaking she did not change the subject, she asked to get a supervisor..." but still there is no explanation for this statement.
Ironically, a few weeks later I called again, and asked whether they had got my emails; I was then put through the same bogus validation that is completely unnecessary given what I was asking. This call ended and I had to call again, this time though I was told that they had the email, and the woman also registered a complaint and found in my favour - for something that is essentially the same as the first complaint - emails!
But no according to the complaints investigator, this second complaint that was found in my favour was found in my favour because there was a yes/no answer.
The email address of the co-operativebank is on their website, but the explanation given as to why this first woman would not give myself the email address is "...I do not agree that Nicola declined to provide an email address..." but she did by trying manipulate the situation by using leveraging what I wanted to get what she wanted first - a competition, and they are always leveraging this is how they operate, and then deny they have done anything wrong when challenged about this behaviour and make the statement "we are here to help".
What they have done with the complaints could be summerised as follows; should I punch you to the ground you would not be happy, but I know that if you do not have the money to take myself to court, and I know the bodies charged with dealing with this will not, then you have to bring myself to do something about it - it is not in my best interests to admit I have done anything wrong. I will say that I need to instigate an investigation, but the only reason why is to find anything against you that you did that I can use to lesson my culpability. Worse still I am the judge, jury and executioner - I control the outcome.
What they should do is admit that they have done something wrong, punish the person who did it, and promise not to do it again. What they are doing in actuality is trying to pull a fast one where they get to rejudge (what you have found to be wrong and what is wrong) in their favour, then palm it off as the real judgement.