Our investigation

We couldn’t consider whether the bank should or shouldn’t have given Ellis the card because it happened too long ago. (We can consider complaints only about matters that have taken place within the previous six years.) After reviewing the bank's communications with Ellis and his daughter, we were satisfied the communication had been on the whole clear and effective. Ellis said the bank had not sent him statements, but the evidence showed otherwise. He had expressed dissatisfaction in June 2021 with the delivery of statements, and the bank had rectified the matter. There was no record of any dissatisfaction thereafter. In any case, the statements were available through internet banking (which Ellis chose not to use, although his daughter did). Ellis said the bank should have sent him letters however it was not obliged to do so. The bank had sent him emails, as well as calling him and his daughter. However, we considered the bank should have sent him information about financial mentoring services (as required by the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003) when he fell behind in his payments. 

The bank offered to wipe Ellis' remaining debt of $2,800, in light of its failure to send him information about financial mentoring services, but he believed the bank should pay more because he had missed out on the opportunity to refinance the credit card debt elsewhere at no interest. However, we considered the bank's offer to be more than we would have recommended as compensation because we doubted Ellis would have taken up a suggestion by the bank to see a financial mentor – a doubt reinforced by the fact he did not seek help when the bank did tell him about such a service.

Outcome 

Ellis accepted the bank's offer of $2,800.