Cassie investigated further and learned her mother had cancelled and replaced her debit card 12 times in the year leading up to her death. On each occasion, her mother had done this in person at a branch. Cassie said she was still concerned that her mother might have been defrauded, and she also did not think the bank had adequately investigated the matter, including her mother's repeated card replacements. 

Our investigation

We could uncover only very limited information about the whole matter. The bank gave us CCTV footage of each of the ATM withdrawals, and we could see that someone other than Cassie’s mother had made many of the withdrawals. We could also establish that the withdrawals were made with the various replacement cards, but that was about the extent of what could be known for certain. There was no doubt someone other than Cassie’s mother made the withdrawals, but it was unclear whether she knew about, or consented to, the withdrawals. The man making the withdrawals had been able to regularly obtain new cards and PINs from Cassie's mother, and it was unclear how he could have done so without her knowledge. Even if the payments were made without her mother's permission, Cassie's mother had more than likely failed to take reasonable care of her banking credentials by sharing her cards and PINs with that person. In those circumstances, we could not even establish there had been a loss, let alone that the bank was liable for it.

We also found there had been no breach of duty by the bank in not asking Cassie's mother why she was replacing her card so often. If the bank had reason to suspect Cassie's mother was in some way vulnerable or had some diminished capacity, it might have been obliged to ask questions. However, the frequent replacement of the cards was not sufficient grounds, in itself, for the bank to make inquiries.

Outcome

We did not uphold Cassie’s complaint.