Bank’s closure of customer’s accounts based on flawed assessment of her behaviour

Home Guides & cases Case notes Bank accounts - 83709

Bank’s closure of customer’s accounts based on flawed assessment of her behaviour

Categories:

Closing accounts,

Summary:

In May 2023, Poppy had trouble opening a term investment because branch and contact centre staff gave her conflicting and incomplete information. In calls to the contact centre, she expressed frustration at the poor service she had received from branch staff. She went back to the branch to try to get help, and the bank subsequently wrote in a report that she had behaved aggressively.

The bank wrote to Poppy saying it intended closing her accounts because of her aggressive behaviour. It also said it would issue a trespass order preventing her from visiting any branches in her area. She challenged the decision, saying she had not been aggressive, but the bank refused to reconsider. It also said she had been filming in the branch, an assertion she denied.

Poppy made a formal complaint to the bank about its decision. The bank referred the complaint to the staff member who had made the decision, and he reiterated the bank’s position. Dissatisfied, Poppy complained to us, but by then her account had been closed. Poppy had power of attorney over her elderly parents, and since she could not visit any local branches, they also had to move their accounts to a new bank.

Published:

November 2024

Our investigation

Banks can decide to close a customer’s accounts at any time, but must follow a fair process. We found the bank’s process had not been fair. We reviewed the calls between Poppy and the bank and found she had not been aggressive or abusive in any of them. Poppy was abrupt and frustrated at times, but mostly she was calm and polite. We found nothing to indicate staff had been uncomfortable with how Poppywas speaking to them, nor had they warned her about her conduct. A bank manager had also listened to the calls but didn't like the way Poppy had spoken to staff, andmade the decision to close her accounts on this basis. However, we considered her conduct fell a long way below the threshold to justify closing accounts and issuing trespass orders.

We also found it unfair that the bank never asked Poppy for her version of events about the visit to the branch that resulted in the report claiming aggressive and abusive behaviour. It said she had been filming in the branch, and had already made the decision to close her accounts when it told her this, and would not review its decision even when Poppy denied the accusation. When it reviewed its decision after Poppy made a formal complaint, the bank assigned the task to the person who had made the decision, not an independent person within the bank.

The bank accepted its assessment of her behaviour was flawed. It apologised unreservedly to Poppy and her parents, offered $2,000 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience its actions had caused, withdrew the trespass order, and said it would be willing to have Poppy as a customer in the future.