In October 2025, Michaela complained that the bank did not honour the repayment arrangement, asked intrusive questions about her spending, and should not have referred the debt to a collection agency. She asked for removal of the debt listing, a refund of her payments to the collection agency, correction of her credit record, and compensation for financial and emotional distress.

Our investigation

In December 2019, the bank agreed to let Michaela pay $25 a week for a month, after which she would need to contact the bank. Michaela thought the bank would set up an automatic payment, but the staff member only said the bank would record the arrangement in its system and temporarily halt any follow-up contact for a month.

Regardless of any confusion in the call, the facts of her case remained unchanged: by late January, she still could not afford repayments that would meet her obligations under the credit agreement, and she had not sold her car as planned. The bank asked Michaela about her spending, assets and ability to make repayments. These questions were intended to assess her ability to make repayments and were reasonable inquiries. The bank also discussed the possible referral of the debt to a collection agency and suggested she contact a financial mentor.

By February 2020, it was clear Michaela could not afford repayments, and she agreed the bank could outsource recovery of the debt, a process that was completed the following month.

We found no evidence the bank acted unreasonably, failed to consider Michaela’s financial hardship appropriately, or breached any duty when handling the credit card debt.

Outcome

We did not uphold Michaela’s complaint.