Our investigation

We found Robyn had the authority and capacity to accept the bank’s offer and so we were unable to look into the merits of the case. However, we had reservations about the way the bank had communicated with Robyn about settling her complaint. We disagreed with the bank’s view that it did not know or should have known Robyn wanted Nieve to support and represent her over the claim. We found Nieve was the key – although not exclusive – point of contact for the fraud investigation. The bank acknowledged in calls that Nieve was helping Robyn with her claim, and it knew Robyn had memory difficulties that put her in a vulnerable position. Nieve was included in the contact details alongside Robyn in the report prepared when they reported the fraud, and the fraud team had been in direct contact with Nieve about its investigation.

We told the bank we expected banks to take extra care when dealing with vulnerable customers. We also conveyed our expectation that banks communicate with a customer's nominated representative unless there was good reason to do otherwise.

Outcome

We told Nieve we thought the bank’s offer was reasonable, but that its handling of the settlement was less than satisfactory. We facilitated an apology by the bank to Nieve and recommended the bank pay her $1,000 for the stress and inconvenience she had suffered. Nieve accepted the apology and the $1,000.