Our investigation

We examined the communication between Edwin and the bank and noticed some meetings and phone calls were mentioned in other diary notes and correspondence, but no call recordings were included or diary notes made for those meetings. We asked the bank to double-check its records, and it reiterated that there were no call recordings, although it had found a further email. The contents of this new email, to our mind, appeared to support Edwin’s position that he had put his proposal to the bank. The bank said the staff members with whom Edwin had discussed his proposal had no authority to approve it. The bank added that Edwin had borrowed money from a friend but had failed to disclose this fact, meaning it would have been impossible to make an accurate assessment of Edwin’s financial position and thus to decide whether his proposal was feasible or not.

However, Edwin had, in fact, informed the bank about this extra lending. The bank subsequently told us it had found two calls between bank staff and Edwin, along with an internal call concerning Edwin. These calls supported Edwin's assertion that the bank had agreed to his proposal. In one of the calls, a staff member told Edwin his plan was "absolutely fine".

Outcome

The bank apologised for its mistake and for the impact this mistake had had on him and his family. It also agreed to loan him funds to pay off the third-party lending, and increased its offer of compensation for the stress and inconvenience it had caused. Edwin accepted the offer.