Our investigation

We learned the bank had retrieved the first batch of recordings by searching for calls linked to his customer number, and that its subsequent search had used an account manager's name and phone number. These new search parameters had revealed the second batch of calls. We were satisfied the staff member had not intentionally withheld the recordings or tried to make it difficult for Juan to access them. We found the second batch of recordings had no bearing on the outcome of our previous investigation. The bank had apologised to Juan for failing to supply all the recordings in 2024, adding that it had since improved its system for tracking down recordings.

We found the bank failed to meet its obligations to supply Juan with the information it held about him. We recommended the bank pay Juan $500 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience its actions had caused him.

As for Juan’s complaint about a conflict of interest, we found there was none. The bank told us staff were expected to handle complaints about a service they had provided and we considered this practice reasonable. We also found it reasonable for the bank, once it learned of the complaint about a conflict of interest, to allocate the case to another staff member, which it did straightaway.

Outcome 

The bank offered Juan $500 for stress and inconvenience, but he rejected the offer.