The bank asked whether they could reduce their childcare costs or work extra hours to boost their income. In the end, the couple drew on savings and borrowed from family members to pay the invoice. They then sold a property they had inherited to pay back family members and cover loan repayments. They complained that the bank reneged on its commitment in May 2023 to lend them money for their renovations. They also complained that the bank asked intrusive questions when they went back for more money, in breach of the prohibition on discrimination based on family status under the Human Rights Act 1993.

Our investigation

We combed the bank’s records and could find no record of a commitment to lend the couple money for their renovations. In May 2023, the bank had merely pointed out that the couple could use an existing loan facility for that purpose. However, we found the bank failed to advise them of the outcome of their June 2024 loan request in a timely manner, a failing that contributed to the confusion about why the bank was questioning them about whether they could cut their expenses or increase their income. But we were satisfied the bank acted correctly in declining their loan application. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 requires banks to estimate and verify a customer's expenses, and the bank had done just that, finding the couple's expenses exceeded their income. The bank was thus unable to approve their loan request. It was their financial position, not their family status, that led the bank to decline the application. They bank offered Tasha and Jeremy $1,500 compensation for failing to advise them promptly of the outcome of their request. We considered this reasonable, given the tardiness of the bank’s response left them in the same position as a prompt response would have.

Outcome

Tasha and Jeremy accepted the bank's offer.