The bank advised John that it was not able to act on his instructions alone given that the parties were in dispute. John said that under the mandate, either borrower could give instructions to the bank. Further, the bank had acted on his sole instructions in the past.
John complained to us that despite the fact that he was experiencing financial hardship, the bank refused to alter the loan terms as he had requested. He also said it was unreasonable for the bank to require Maureen’s consent to any changes to the loan given that she was not contributing towards the loan payments.
We reviewed the loan agreement and it provided that the bank was not bound to act on individual instructions. We were not able to find that the bank had acted inappropriately in exercising its discretion to decline to act on John’s instructions alone. Given the bank was on notice that there was a dispute about the future of the property and the payments on the loans, it was reasonable for the bank to require joint instructions before considering whether it would agree to any changes to the joint lending arrangements.
We did not uphold John’s complaint.
Print this page