Our investigation
We examined Curtis’ interactions with the bank and found the bank did not treat him reasonably, communicate clearly with him, or respond promptly to his request. Curtis was incorrectly told he could access the statement online and through the Inland Revenue Department. He was emailed the wrong statements, and staff gave conflicting advice about whether Curtis was required to be AML (anti-money laundering) verified. Some staff said the statement could be posted, while others did not mention this option. The statement was eventually emailed to Curtis two weeks after his initial request, and only after he made a complaint to the bank.
We examined the bank’s internal policies, which said replacement KiwiSaver statements could be emailed, but generated statements could only be emailed to AML-verified customers. Non-verified customers would receive them by post. It was unclear to us why AML verification was necessary for emailing generated statements, or why posting to a non-verified address was considered more secure than emailing to a verified address. The policies’ complexity and lack of clarity no doubt confused bank staff, who in turn confused Curtis with their responses to his questions.
We recommended to the bank that it pay Curtis $300 to recognise the stress and inconvenience he had suffered. We also recommended the bank review and update its policies on providing KiwiSaver statements.
Outcome
Curtis did not accept our recommended compensation.
Print this page