Our investigation

In examining the bank’s responses to Theo’s request in 2021 to close the boxes, we found it did not explain the numerous steps that were required or supply the necessary forms. This failure undoubtedly caused Theo some inconvenience and delay. In 2025, when Theo repeated the request, the bank did outline all the closure steps and did send the required forms. One form, however, incorrectly required Rebecca’s signature: she was authorised to access only one box, but she was not authorised to close it. The bank later corrected the form.

We found the bank did not, in fact, contribute to any serious delay in closing the boxes.  This was because Theo did not follow up after the bank’s inadequate response in 2021 for four years.  Also, after he subsequently received an amended closure form, he did not follow through with the closure procedure. Therefore, the bank was not required to reimburse his safety deposit box fees. However, we considered the bank should provide some compensation for the inconvenience it had caused him in 2021. 

As for Theo’s complaint that the bank failed to tell him about changes to its process for accessing safety deposit boxes, we found the bank did not have to tell him about internal procedural changes if they did not affect his contract with the bank – which they did not.

Theo also complained about the accuracy of the bank’s records about his access to the boxes, specifically it had failed to record an entry he made in 2006. However, the bank’s records showed signed entries in 2006 for all three boxes.  

Outcome

We recommended to the bank pay Theo $700 for inconvenience. Theo disagreed with our recommendation, and we closed the case on that basis.