Jeffery complained that the bank had acted erroneously, that it had failed to provide a full and proper response to a privacy request, and that it had communicated with him in an unsatisfactory manner.

Our investigation

The bank had no obligation to accept incoming international payments or forward outgoing international payments. Furthermore, its terms and conditions specifically said it could refuse to process payments it reasonably suspected to be covered by international sanctions. It was up to the bank to decide whether a payment had such a connection. The bank thus acted in accordance with its terms and conditions when it decided to freeze payments, and also when it closed the companies’ accounts and cancelled a term loan. It also gave Jeffrey sufficient notice to find another bank and organise the repayment of the loan.

As for the privacy aspect of Jeffrey’s complaint, we found the bank responded in accordance with section 44(2) of the Privacy Act 2020, which allowed the bank to supply some information but withhold or redact other information. However, the bank failed to tell Jeffery it needed an extension to the 20-working-day deadline to respond to his information request or say why it needed an extension – an omission Jeffrey would have found stressful and inconvenient. We found no other instances of poor communication.  

Outcome  

We awarded Jeffrey $200 to compensate for the stress and inconvenience he suffered.