Summary of Key Points
Recently, a bank in Rong County, Sichuan Province, required customers to provide their household registration books (not a regulatory requirement, but an internal rule) in order to increase their transfer limits, which has sparked public controversy. This phenomenon of "abusing internal rules to inconvenience customers" is not isolated: in Shandong, a customer was asked to report the purpose of withdrawing 40,000 yuan; telecom operators require additional documentation such as a criminal record for customers from other regions when applying for cards; property management companies prevent the use of public maintenance funds; and schools refuse to accept student records from outside their jurisdiction. The root cause is that these institutions, in order to avoid responsibility or benefit themselves, impose internal rules on customers, creating unfair conditions. Such practices are both illegal and unjust and require a joint effort from regulators, institutions, and customers to address.
I. In What Situations Are Internal Rules Being Abused? – Common Cases Involving Card Users
Many institutions use internal rules as a shield, causing inconvenience for customers:
- Banks: Ms. Li in Sichuan was asked to provide her household registration book in addition to her ID and bank card to increase her transfer limit; a customer in Shandong was required to report the purpose of withdrawing 40,000 yuan and provide transaction history (although this requirement has been temporarily suspended by regulators and is not legally mandated).
- Telecom Operators: Customers from other regions are asked to provide proof of no criminal record, property ownership, and social security details when applying for mobile cards (none of which are required by law).
- Property Management/Schools: Property management companies use excuses to prevent the use of public maintenance funds for elevator repairs; schools refuse to accept student records from outside their district based on internal procedures.
The common factor in these cases is that institutions use internal rules as a pretext to demand things beyond what is legally required.
II. Why Have Internal Rules Become a Barrier? – The Root Causes Are Avoiding Responsibility and Seeking Profit
Internal rules are originally meant to regulate the behavior of the institution's own staff (such as bank employees' procedures). However, they are now being used to restrict customers for two main reasons:
1. Fear of Liability: For example, banks fear fines for accounts involved in fraud (branch managers and tellers may be held accountable), so they implement rules like requiring additional documentation or reporting cash withdrawals, making customers go through extra steps to prove their innocence. This allows the bank to shift responsibility: "We asked the customer to provide additional information; we are not at fault."
2. Cost Saving: Institutions transfer the risks and costs that should be borne by them onto customers. For instance, banks could use technical means to enhance risk control but instead make customers prove their innocence, saving themselves the effort.
Essentially, this is a form of "using customers as a scapegoat" to ensure their own safety.
III. What Is Wrong with These Internal Rules? – They Are Illegal and Unfair
Internal rules are not a "universal solution"; they must comply with higher-level regulations:
1. Violating Higher-Level Regulations: Just as company policies cannot contradict national laws, internal rules must not conflict with regulatory requirements or the law. For example, requiring customers to report withdrawals over 50,000 yuan violates the regulation that states no registration is needed for amounts under 50,000 yuan (this requirement was temporarily suspended in 2022); telecom operators requiring a criminal record for card applications violates the legal requirement of only needing an ID.
2. Unfair Conditions: Institutions use their advantageous position (e.g., banks providing essential services with no alternative for customers) to impose unilateral demands. Customers either have to comply (through extra effort) or give up (and fail to get what they need), leaving them with no choice but to accept the unfair terms.
3. Deviation from the Purpose of Service: Internal rules should help institutions serve customers better, but in this case, they become a reason for reduced service quality (e.g., banks aim to facilitate transfers, yet customers are forced to travel long distances without success).
IV. How to Solve This Problem? – Joint Efforts by Regulators, Institutions, and Customers
To address this issue, all three parties need to take action:
1. Regulatory Authorities: Regularly review institutions' internal policies, eliminate those that violate higher-level regulations and harm customers, and publicly highlight typical cases (e.g., which banks are demanding unnecessary documentation) to deter such practices.
2. Institutions: Before establishing new rules, ensure they are legal (consult lawyers or regulatory authorities) and consider customer feedback (e.g., hold hearings).
3. Customers: When faced with unreasonable internal rules, ask questions: "Where does this rule come from? Can I see the document? Does it comply with national laws?" For example, Ms. Li successfully defended her rights by seeking legal assistance.
In Conclusion
Internal rules are not private guidelines; they must not override the law and fairness. Only when institutions truly serve customers and do not use them as a shield can they gain trust and create a more convenient and fair environment for everyone.