The bank contacted Lila, who initially agreed to the request. After the bank sent all three women a loan variation letter, Lila told the bank she did not agree to any of the proposed changes to the loans. The bank told Miranda it could not make the changes unless all three borrowers agreed.

Miranda complained to the bank that the decision not to restructure the loans was unfair. She said she had a protection order against Lila, and that Lila had been violent and abusive towards her. Miranda said she had incurred additional legal fees as a result of the bank’s actions, which also caused her considerable stress.

Our investigation

We agreed with the bank that it was not obliged to act on Miranda’s restructuring request after Lila refused to agree to it.

However, we considered the bank did not treat Miranda fairly and reasonably when it responded to her request. The bank gave Miranda the impression that the restructuring had been finalised when it was, in fact, dependent on Lila’s consent.  The bank had conveyed this impression because it wrongly believed Lila had agreed to the restructuring request, despite information on file clearly showing she had not.

We also considered the bank should have taken extra care, given that Lila’s previous abusive behaviour had left Miranda in a vulnerable position. The bank should have told Miranda that Lila could veto its decision.

The bank offered Miranda $2,500 to resolve her complaint.

Outcome

Miranda accepted the bank’s offer.