BOV’s dormant accounts

A BOV branch. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

A worrying situation seems to be arising with clients holding Bank Of Valletta accounts. It seems that money in accounts that become dormant irrespective of the amounts in them, becomes the property of BOV if the account is not activated.

One confirmation I had was that BOV, contrary to other local banks, does not notify clients when accounts are due to become dormant. Surely I expect that some official explanation is forthcoming from BOV to confirm what becomes of dormant accounts if not activated in time.

God knows how many elderly persons do not even know if their accounts became dormant and to their surprise find empty accounts. For fairness’ sake and peace of mind please clarify this situation and show some respect to clients of BOV.

Michael Vella – Sliema

Bank of Valletta replies:

Reference is made to the letter to the editor dated March 18, titled BOV’s dormant accounts. 

Bank of Valletta would like to clarify that the statements made in the letter, where it is being stated that dormant accounts become the property of BOV if the account is not activated are incorrect.

An account is considered to be dormant after a period of inactivity, currently set at 24 months, where no financial withdrawals or deposits have been effected for the last two years. It does not apply to Young Savers Accounts,  Basic Payment Accounts, and Restricted Accounts.

Accounts with the status ‘Dormant’ do not become the property of BOV as is stated in the letter, but are subject to an account inactivity fee as per the bank’s tariff of charges.

All customers were informed of the terms and conditions governing the bank’s deposit account suite. If the account continues to remain inactive the charge will be debited to the account.

Karl Spiteri, Head Corporate Communications at Bank of Valletta Plc.

Difficult choices

I deeply sympathise with the grief of parents who have experienced miscarriage. The loss of a wanted pregnancy is heartbreaking, and the pain felt by these mothers is real and profound. But this sorrow does not contradict the fact that not all pregnancies are wanted, nor does it justify forcing someone to carry a pregnancy against their will.

A key distinction must be made: those who mourn miscarriages do so because they wanted their pregnancies to continue. Their loss is personal and meaningful, as it should be.

However, this does not mean that every pregnancy must be carried to term, regardless of the circumstances. Just as a wanted pregnancy is deeply cherished, an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy can be a source of immense distress.

The law should not impose one perspective on all women, particularly in ways that disregard their health, autonomy and life circumstances.

Margaret Parnis England (‘God-given gift’, March 11) asks for respect for grieving mothers. I fully agree. But respect should extend to all women, including those who make the difficult decision to end a pregnancy. Their choices, just like those of grieving mothers, come from deeply personal places. Denying them autonomy in the name of a singular, religiously motivated viewpoint is neither just nor compassionate.

Pregnancy is a deeply individual experience and no woman should be forced into it or made to suffer because her circumstances do not align with someone else’s beliefs.

Respecting women means trusting them to make the best decisions for themselves, whether that means carrying a pregnancy to term or making the painful but necessary choice to terminate it.

Peter Dingli – San Diego, California