The bank repeated its request. Effie emailed the bank to say she did not understand the bank's request or the reasons for it and asked for an explanation. The bank merely reiterated information about its obligations and the information that was outstanding, adding that it would close her accounts unless she complied with its request by a specified date. Effie emailed back that she did not understand what the bank was asking for. The bank did not respond to the email, Effie did not supply the remaining information, and the bank closed her accounts. 

Effie's son contacted the bank about its requests, and eventually acknowledged that his mother could never have provided the missing information. However he complained that this would have become clear much earlier if the bank had responded to his mother’s email and said the bank had handled the whole matter poorly.

Our investigation

We agreed that the bank had handled the requests for information badly. The bankhad communicated its requests in plain, clearly worded language – with the exception of the phrase “source of wealth”, which some customers, Effie included, might have had trouble understanding. It also gave examples of sources of wealth that would not necessarily be applicable to all customers – again, including Effie. More importantly, however, the obvious and reasonable response to Effie’s saying she did not understand the requests was to set up a phone call to explain what the bank was seeking and why, particularly given the bank’s declared intention of closing her accounts if she failed to comply.

Outcome

The bank apologised for its handling of the matter and offered Effie $500. She accepted the offer.