Bank acknowledges miscommunication over term deposit

Categories:

Bank accounts, Instructions not followed,

Summary:

In 2011, Serenity and her husband set up bank accounts for their son. They made him the account holder and themselves the authorised signatories. In 2018, they put $174,000 into a term deposit in their son’s name. The maturity date was November 2023, after he had turned 18. Meanwhile, Serenity and her husband separated.
In October 2023, Serenity tried to change the mandate and term deposit so she and her former husband became the account holders. However, he did not agree to the change, and after their son turned 18, he signed a new mandate and removed Serenity as an authorised signatory.

Published:

June 2025

Serenity complained that the bank removed her access to the term deposit account despite its repeated assurances that any changes to the account would require her and her then husband’s agreement. The bank acknowledged the staff member concerned had provided inaccurate information and offered $1,000 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience she had suffered as a result. Serenity was unhappy with this offer and complained to us.

Our investigation

We examined the account mandate set up in 2011 and the bank’s subsequent communications with Serenity. We considered the bank had acted in accordance with that mandate and had not breached any obligation to her regarding the term deposit in her son's name. Furthermore, her son owned the funds, so she had not suffered any direct financial loss. However, we considered the bank’s communications with her had been misleading and had caused her stress. We asked the bank to reconsider its offer in recognition of the strain this matter had had on her relationship with her son and the detrimental effect it had had on her own health. The bank offered Serenity $4,000 to settle this complaint (and another complaint).