Mason complained that the bank did not clearly communicate acceptable repayment terms, delayed progress in arriving at acceptable terms through repeated requests for information, did not allow them to refix the interest rate, and ultimately forced them to sell their home.

Our investigation

We found that the bank met its obligations in handling the application for hardship assistance. The bank rejected the application because repayments on the home loan were already more than two months in arrears and the bank responded within the required timeframe. The bank had assessed the various repayment proposals submitted during the subsequent two years but rejected them because they lacked necessary information and appeared to be unaffordable. The bank had told the couple it was not confident they could afford – or would adhere to – the proposed repayment plans, and on each occasion indicated it might initiate action to recover the growing arrears.

The bank continued to try to come to an acceptable repayment arrangement, offering at one point to defer legal action subject to the couple meeting certain conditions. In January 2025, the bank declined a request to vary the terms of the loan because it remained concerned about missing information in the repayment proposal and the affordability of the proposal. In April 2025, the bank issued a final demand notice.

We found the bank acted responsibly and communicated clearly with Mason and Christy. It agreed to consider alternative repayment proposals, and it explained what it required in those proposals. It was under no obligation to accept any of the proposals or to offer a fixed interest rate. Its requests for information were consistent with its duty to act as a responsible lender.

Outcome

We did not uphold Mason’s complaint.