Ivan said the bank manipulated his original loan application and subsequent loan top-ups to ensure they would be approved, despite being unaffordable, and the bank was aware of this when it entered into the settlement agreement. He said the bank breached a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement by adding a notation to its system that he should not receive any further credit. Ivan also said the bank failed to respond to his correspondence and requests for information, and it had not communicated appropriately regarding the mortgagee sale, particularly by failing to tell him when the house would be sold.
The bank said the mortgage and settlement agreements were in accordance with its operating procedures and that Ivan was aware of the pending mortgagee auction. It said it had given him all the information he sought.
We could not consider Ivan’s complaint about the loan application or the revised repayment arrangement because he had signed the settlement agreement resolving his existing dispute with the bank.
Of the issues not covered by the settlement agreement, we did not find that the bank had miscommunicated the mortgagee sale date and did not consider the system notation about further credit to be a breach of the agreement’s confidentiality clause. We noted there was one instance where the bank had not acknowledged Ivan’s correspondence, which it should have, but we did not consider that this omission resulted in any serious consequences for him.
We did not uphold the complaint. The bank allowed Ivan further time to achieve a sale of the property himself, and he was successful in making a sale.
Print this page