However, when the bank subsequently made inquiries with Jeanette about the account, Jeanette instructed the bank to leave the block in place, and the bank refused to remove it when Benny asked. Benny complained that the block meant the account was accruing unnecessary interest and fees because the account was near its limit, and that excess rates would soon apply. He said the bank failed to fully explain to Jeanette the consequences of such a step – namely, the extra interest and fees. Benny also said the bank suggested to Jeanette that she keep the block in place. The block caused Benny inconvenience because it meant he had to change payment details for regular payments. Benny also said the bank had breached his privacy by emailing Jeanette about the account block, and what was required to remove it.

Our investigation

We found the bank should have made inquiries about whether Benny and Jeanette were in dispute about the account before unilaterally blocking the account. However, Jeanette’s subsequent instruction to the bank to keep the block in place constituted a valid customer instruction, and we could not compel the bank to remove the block. We could find no evidence to suggest the bank gave an inadequate explanation about the effect of the block to Jeanette, or that the bank suggested she keep the block in place. The extra interest payable was minimal, as Benny acknowledged. We did not agree there had been a privacy breach because Jeanette, as an account holder, was privy to all information about the account. We found the bank initially applied the account block in error, which meant the block was in place for longer than it should have been, and failed to promptly tell Benny about the block. These errors caused Benny some stress and inconvenience.

Outcome

The bank offered $1,500 compensation for inconvenience, an offer Benny accepted.