However, he subsequently complained that the bank did not tell him he could fix the rate for a longer period if he repaid the principal as well as interest. Had the bank explained this option, he said, he would have taken it.

Manaia also made a second separate complaint. While overseas, he said, locals had drugged him and stolen his debit card and phone. He had not been carrying his credit card at the time and so still had access to funds. He contacted the bank to tell it to block the debit card.  He also told the bank he still had his credit card and asked it to disable the text authenticator for authorising credit card transactions (as he did not have his phone). Instead, the bank blocked both cards, leaving Manaia without access to funds and causing him considerable stress and inconvenience.

Our investigation

We examined the loan documents and found the bank had acted in accordance with Manaia’s instruction to extend the interest-only period for two years and refix the loan for two years. The bank’s records showed he had been satisfied with this option and had signed an agreement to this effect. The records also showed he had not asked about fixed rates for longer periods.

As for the cancellation of his cards, the bank made an error when it cancelled his credit card.  In failing to act in accordance with his instructions, it had left him without any ability to draw on his funds – a highly stressful situation for which the bankoffered him $2,000 compensation.

Outcome

We did not uphold Manaia’s complaint about the loan, but he accepted the bank’s compensation offer for the cancellation of his credit card in error.