‘Had to wait': TikToker's horror ING ordeal
A Melbourne woman was left without money for two days after ING suspended her account for what they deemed to be 'suspicious activity'.
In an ordeal that has left her switching banks, Katie McMaster posted to TikTok after being left without access to her card and unable to withdraw money due to a flag on her account.
She said she was initially sent an email on Tuesday, telling her that her accounts had been suspended and she needed to verify her identity.
Ms McMaster called ING to verify the email was legit, where she was told she would need to wait up to two days for the fraud team to get back to her.
'They said I need to wait for the fraud team to contact me. I can't speak to them, they wouldn't transfer me to them, I had to wait for them to email me,' she said in the video.
After two days – and calling ING multiple times – Ms McMaster finally had her accounts unsuspended.
She said the fraud team told her there was just 'one person' managing the fraud inbox.
Speaking to news.com.au, Ms McMaster said the 'suspicious activity' turned out to be a transfer with her friend for payment of a Usher ticket.
'I don't know if my TikTok helped, but suddenly, they moved pretty quickly,' she said.
Ms McMaster said the verification process as a whole did not feel secure.
'They're sending you emails but then when you ring them and you're on hold, they say ING will never ask you to provide verification via email,' she said.
She also said she did not have the option to go into a branch, as there are none in Melbourne.
'It was frustrating just waiting, I probably wouldn't have minded so much if they kept me in the loop,' she said.
Ms McMaster said she is now moving banks after being with ING for more than a decade due to the ordeal, with many users on TikTok commenting about similar experiences.
A spokeswoman for ING said the bank does place temporary 'holds' on an account if the bank detects 'suspicious transactions'.
'This often involves temporarily placing a hold on a customer's account until we can confirm the transactions with the customer,' she said.
'We recognise that temporarily pausing activity on an account can impact customers, so we always check they have access to essential funds, ensuring they are not placed in financial hardship.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
24 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Empty Airbnbs fuel Sydney's rental crisis
While Sydney-siders struggle to find affordable rentals, Airbnbs in Sydney sit empty on average 294 days a year. As Sydney's rental crisis continues, with sky-high prices and limited vacancies, thousands of properties that could house locals are sitting idle most of the year. Short term rentals, like Stayz and Airbnb are having a huge impact on Sydney's tenants while property investors charge premium nightly rates, earning far more than traditional rentals. An inquiry by Unions NSW into the rental market's severe supply shortage revealed there were were over 200,000 un-hosted Airbnb dwellings in Australia, while renters, including many essential workers, were struggling with rental stress or risked homelessness. Last year, 67,900 people sought help from homelessness services with thousands turned away due to a lack of funding, according to Homelessness NSW. Unions NSW and Homelessness NSW are calling for urgent change, asking the state government to match Victoria's recently implemented 7.5 per cent levy on short-term rental stays. New builds vanish amid loan slump Homelessness NSW CEO Dominique Rowe said the pressure on the rental market exacerbated by short-term rentals has driven an alarming rise in homelessness. 'We are seeing a severe shortage of affordable rental properties, pricing more and more people out of the private market and into homelessness,' she said. Unions NSW secretary Mark Morey said this was a 'commonsense approach.' '(It) would make a positive difference. The Government promised to tackle housing affordability. We now need to see action,' he said. The inquiry found essential workers faced additional challenges securing long-term housing because of the impacts of the short-term rental market. 'This is forcing the workers our communities rely on into excessive commutes, financial stress or even homelessness,' Mr Morey said. The number of short-term rentals outnumbered vacant long-term rentals in some areas across Sydney, with a large portion near hospitals. Search results on Airbnb showed over 1000 listings within proximity to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital located in Camperdown, while there were only 71 properties in the suburb listed for long-term rental on On top of a 7.5 per cent levy, Unions NSW have suggested a 60-day statewide cap on un-hosted short-term rental stays. Revenue from the proposed levy could go towards funding essential worker accomodation or homelessness services. 'A levy on short-term accommodation would encourage long-term rental availability and would raise much-needed funds that should be directed to overwhelmed and under-resourced homelessness services,' Ms Rowe said.
ABC News
29 minutes ago
- ABC News
Jim Chalmers wants a fight on tax, just like his 'brawler' hero Paul Keating
For those hoping Labor might use its landslide victory to be more ambitious, Jim Chalmers came to the press club with a message: game on. His speech was overshadowed by dramatic developments on the other side of the world, and buried under the dull heading of productivity and tax reform. But there was no mistaking the impression that Chalmers is emboldened by the election result and wants to seize his moment. The speech was light on specifics but lofty in aspiration. The treasurer was explicit that he wanted to use August's reform roundtable to make a lasting change to the tax system — to pick a fight and win it, like his "brawler statesman" hero Paul Keating. Chalmers is several steps ahead of his more cautious prime minister, whose own press club speech about economic reform last week was more grounded in talk of "win-wins" and incremental progress. But creative tension between treasurer and prime minister is the hallmark of all consequential governments, as with Hawke and Keating, or Howard and Costello. And economic reform — especially tax — is what those governments are remembered for, just as the political graveyard is littered with infamous tax failures like Gillard's carbon tax, Hewson's "fightback" and Shorten's negative gearing and franking credits. Tax matters to people, even if its finer details can make the eyes glaze over. So it is no small matter that the treasurer is standing at an open windowsill of opportunity and declaring he wants to jump through it. As one Labor frontbencher in the room remarked, it was the kind of speech the Labor faithful had waited 15 years to hear. For now, reaction from commentators has ranged from ambivalence to outright scepticism — "Rome not yet built on day one", read the opinion pages. And it's true that ambition is often thwarted by the cold light of reality, because anything worth doing on tax is hard to do. But even the whisper of a chance is enough for economists to prick up their ears after years of relentless caution and "safe" incrementalism. And there is much that could be done. For all the rancour, economists, unions, business and welfare advocates agree a lot about what's wrong with the status quo. There are always quibbles, but the broad collected wisdom is as follows: First, Australia taxes working people too much. That picture gets even worse if you factor in transfers (welfare and subsidies), which are below the poverty line for those on the lowest incomes and effectively impose extra taxes on middle earners, because the payments are withdrawn as you earn more. The picture is worse again if you factor in bracket creep — the fact that tax settings are not adjusted for inflation, meaning people pay more tax over time. Second, our tax system is wildly inconsistent in how it treats different types of income. A couple with no assets, both on the minimum wage, could pay more tax than a couple with three homes, a share portfolio, and hundreds of thousands in annual income. In fact, without needing to bend reality too much, it's plausible that the second couple could pay no tax at all. As well as the obvious inequities, these inconsistencies are inefficient, encouraging people to park their money in certain places (especially super and property) over others. At the same time, there are many reasons to expect we will need to raise more tax over time, in part because as people live longer they will require more care. And while there is lively debate over whether some government spending can be cut, there is pressure to spend more in several areas, much of it with strong public support. So if we want to be less reliant on taxing wages, we would need to consider other ways to raise money. Increasing taxes on consumption (GST) or land are among the options that would be more efficient, though not necessarily more equitable. Finally, all of this creates an intergenerational problem, because in the coming years there will be more retirees for every person of working age, piling the tax burden onto the shoulders of the young, a problem which gets worse the longer we neglect it. To summarise: the wrong type of tax, designed badly, and not enough of it, to the detriment of working people and young people, and distorting the economy. And that's before even mentioning corporate tax, fuel tax or cigarette tax — all of which are the subject of their own lively debates. All of that is enough to be overwhelming. But a wealth of problems means a wealth of possible answers. All of the "big ticket" items that feature prominently in political debate — negative gearing, capital gains tax, super tax, raising the GST, ending bracket creep, taxing land — are efforts to address one or another of these agreed shortcomings of the tax system. While Chalmers insists he is happy for all of these to be on the table and is keen not to rule things out, his press club appearance — where journalists tried valiantly to tempt him to do just that — left the impression he wants to avoid ideas with too much baggage. If he chose negative gearing, he would be accused of reheating leftovers and presented with a highlight reel of all the times he or the PM has promised not to revisit it, with the Coalition likely opposed and the Greens likely taking credit. If he chose the GST, he would risk creating "sticker shock" and be the treasurer who delivers a temporary price rise on everything, an option unlikely to appeal so soon after a nasty bout of inflation, especially since the states would get to keep all the money. And if he chose to go further on super tax concessions, he would embolden the scare campaign already amassing against his current push to lift the tax on earnings, which visibly irritates him every time he is asked about it. None of these seems especially likely. But if the treasurer is searching for a defining reform, there are options on the shelf with more dust but fewer enemies. Perhaps the most popular among economists — and yet still fairly obscure to the general public — is a dual income tax. That tax, common in Scandinavia, treats wages and salaries ("active" or "labour" income) differently to investments and capital gains ("passive" or "savings" income). Australia currently treats some investment income the same way as wages but other types completely differently. A dual tax could close loopholes and treat investment more consistently on the one hand, and lower taxes on wage earners on the other hand, while still being revenue neutral or even raising money. It's an idea with a long lineage, discussed at length in the famous Henry tax review in the early days of the Rudd government. Ken Henry, the treasury secretary who gave that review its name and who helped Chalmers with a draft of his press club speech this week, has become something of a "godfather of tax reform", and his hefty report still carries authority. But there's little to show for that reputation — 15 years on, politicians have intoned their reverence for the Henry review while politely ignoring almost all its recommendations. The reason? Because there is no such thing as meaningful tax reform that does not create both winners and losers. And for some time now, governments skirting on the edges of electoral defeat have been nervous about losers, preferring instead to promise higher spending and lower taxes. The Morrison government made an artform of this "double carrot", carefully designing its tax cuts to ensure no taxpayer was ever made worse off by even a cent. For this it was rewarded, winning a 2019 election against a Labor opposition with a substantial and controversial tax reform agenda who told the losers that if they didn't like it, they could vote for someone else, which they did. That's the price tag of reform. But with its colossal majority, the Albanese government could decide it can afford it. Chalmers, at least, thinks so. Perhaps his most pointed comment this week was that he did not believe the media narrative that Labor was assured of a third term. Translation: time is of the essence.
News.com.au
33 minutes ago
- News.com.au
1100 units in limbo: The projects at risk of not going ahead
More than a quarter of Brisbane's apartment projects are at risk of not getting off the ground, as new figures reveal more than 1100 units are stuck in limbo. The research conducted by Urbis for the Property Council of Australia reveals apartment completions are falling well short of targets, with 27 per cent of future supply at risk of not being completed by 2028. Exclusive research by PRD reveals there are currently 22 apartment projects either abandoned or deferred in Brisbane, putting some 1100 units in limbo — plus hundreds more that remain incomplete well past their construction due dates. Under the South-East Queensland Regional Plan, Brisbane is required to build about 7,977 apartments annually from 2021 to 2031. But, according to the research, only about a quarter of this target — around 2000 — has been delivered each year since 2019. Urbis director Paul Riga said tracking of forward apartment completions suggested 2026 to 2028 would 'at most' deliver around half of the target — with some projects at risk of not proceeding at all. Auction drama marks jaw-dropping sale of Aus' 'best build' 'With competition for labour expected on the back of significant infrastructure investment, action needs to be taken now to ensure dwelling development activity increases beyond 2028,' Mr Riga said. Property Council Queensland executive director Jess Caire said apartment completions were projected to increase to around 4000 units in 2025, however, that was still well short of the targets and the bulk of new supply beyond 2025 was difficult to predict. 'The data tells a stark reality and there is no sugar coating the scale of the challenge in front of us — building over 7000 apartments a year would be a quantum leap forward in comparison to what we have been able to achieve in recent years,' Ms Caire said. 'The good news is we know we can build the number of apartments we need because we have done it before.' Ms Caire said 9527 and 9128 units respectively were built in 2016 and 2017, but industry headwinds had increased significantly, with high construction costs, declining productivity, acute labour shortages, and tax settings, which had become increasingly regressive. 'To remedy this, we need to be bold and pull every available policy and taxation lever to boost supply because every year we miss our targets the greater the challenge becomes,' she said. BRISBANE APARTMENT PROJECTS ABANDONED OR DEFERRED IN 2025 Project Suburb Number of units 1. ZEPHYR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT 55 2. 28 MACGREGOR STREET APARTMENTS UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT 197 3. 143 BEATRICE TERRACE UNITS ASCOT 5 4. 35 HORSINGTON STREET UNITS MORNINGSIDE 7 5. 14-16 PARKHILL STREET APARTMENTS CHERMSIDE 9 6. 16-20 CHARLOTTE STREET UNITS CHERMSIDE 55 7. LATITUDE ALBION 48 8. MCGOLDRICK RESIDENCES WYNNUM WEST 11 9. 45A & 47 CLARENCE ROAD APARTMENTS INDOOROOPILLY 26 10. 30-34 WARDLE STREET UNITS MOUNT GRAVATT 27 11. 448 HAMILTON ROAD UNITS CHERMSIDE 11 12. 9 STANLEY TERRACE UNITS TARINGA 4 13. 61 JOSLING STREET UNITS TOOWONG 4 14. BODHI APARTMENTS UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT 68 15. 76 COMMERCIAL RD MIXED USE TENERIFFE 54 16. 151 CAVENDISH RD MIXED USE COORPAROO 37 17. TOOWONG CENTRAL MIXED USE TOOWONG 145 18. EAST VILLAGE PRECINCT 2D STAGES 1 & 2 CANNON HILL 137 19. 52 STATION ROAD MIXED USE INDOOROOPILLY 15 20. 61 DOULTON STREET MIXED USE CALAMVALE 10 21. 351 BEAMS ROAD MIXED USE TAIGUM 23 22. TRICARE RELOCATABLE HOME PARK ROCHEDALE 169 Source: PRD Research 'Since 2016, Queensland's foreign tax settings have cost the state 33,000 new homes. That is 33,000 rooves that could have been over the head of Queenslanders. 'We are in a race to build 1 million new homes by 2044 — a race that would be hard enough to win without a self-imposed handicap, which is effectively what our foreign tax regime amounts to.' Mr Riga said difficulties in finding builders, combined with high construction costs and labour shortages, was stopping many projects from going ahead. He said collaboration between builders and developers in the past year had helped see some projects through to completion. Purdy Developments founder Craig Purdy said more developers were adopting full integrated, in-house models for designing, building, and selling residential product. 'You've got control then, but there's risk too,' Mr Purdy said. 'Builders are all struggling, and they've all left the tier 2 space.' Mr Purdy said a 'box' in inner Brisbane now cost about $2m and three to four years to build. 'It's eye-watering how long it takes to do prestige product now,' he said. 'Sites are so expensive now. Then you've got the construction costs and finding a builder. It seems people are prepared to pay for it though — that's the irony.'
