Stefan also complained that the bank had breached his privacy by telling a staff member he knew personally about his complaint, contrary to his instruction, and it had put him on speakerphone without his knowledge or consent. Finally, he said the bank had called his integrity into question on several occasions.
Bank records showed the bank had confirmed in writing with Stefan on 2 November 2020 that the lending would be for principal and interest. Records also appeared to show that Stefan had come back asking for interest-only terms, but the bank had declined the request. We could find no evidence that the bank had led Stefan to believe it had approved interest-only terms.
As for contacting the staff member Stefan knew, we considered the bank had acted reasonably in doing so because Stefan had been in contact with this person throughout the loan process. Given his history of dissatisfaction with previous staff, the bank also wanted to find out from that staff member which construction coach should manage Stefan’s building loan. We didn’t therefore think the contact was inappropriate or a breach of privacy.
We agreed the bank should have told him it was putting him on speakerphone. However, it had to tell the person listening in about the contents of the conversation anyway, so we could not see how this had caused Stefan any harm.
Lastly, we agreed that the bank had acted inappropriately in questioning Stefan's integrity. We suggested the bank apologise to Stefan.
The bank apologised to Stefan.Print this page