Isabel made further purchases later that month. On 9 August, a $2,000 transaction again triggered the bank’s fraud detection system and her access was blocked. Isabel confirmed the transaction by phone and was told her access would be restored. However, later that day, the bank blocked her card and internet banking again, and sent her an email saying an investigation had begun. Isabel contacted the bank and asked why the bank had imposed the block and how she could access her money, but she did not receive a response until 14 August, after she lodged a complaint.

Isabel said the bank’s actions had left her unable to access money to pay for essential living expenses and had also caused her significant distress.

Our investigation

We looked at the bank’s actions and communications following the flagged transactions. On 13 July, the bank made what we considered to be suitable inquiries of Isabel about the transactions. It told Isabel it was making these inquiries because of the high-risk nature of cryptocurrency investments, and warned her about scam risks. She confirmed she understood the warning and accepted the risks.

On 9 August, the bank again made inquiries into her cryptocurrency purchases, which was reasonable given the bank still held concerns about the risk that Isabel was being scammed or defrauded. However, we found the bank’s communication during and after these exchanges did not meet its obligations under the Code of Banking Practice.

During the call on 9 August, the staff member did not clearly explain until late in the almost 30-minute conversation the bank’s concern about the transactions being a potential scam. The staff member’s approach was confusing and the tone was at times condescending.

The email sent on 9 August was neither clear nor specific to Isabel’s circumstances. It failed to explain the implications of the account restrictions or how she could access her money and gave very general indications about when the bank would complete its investigation.

During a follow-up call, the bank did not answer Isabel’s questions about the investigation or the impact of the account restrictions on her scheduled payments. The bank also failed to follow up as promised and did not contact Isabel until she lodged a complaint.

The bank initially offered Isabel $250 for the stress and inconvenience it had caused her.  After hearing our view on the complaint, the bank increased the offer to $500 and accepted our recommendation to review how the bank communicated with customers in Isabel’s circumstances, including providing training for staff members and revising email wording.

Outcome

Isabel accepted the bank’s offer of $500.