Case Notes
Search results
Debit card expired – refusal to send replacement card overseas – failure to explain policy or give notice of expiry
Mr C was issued with an ATM card by a New Zealand bank in April 2002, but spent most of his time living in Australia. He used his card in New Zealand and Australia without incident until April 2005, when he was surprised to find that his card was declined while he was on holiday in Australia. When he returned home to Sydney and contacted the bank, he was told that the card had expired, and that it was not the bank’s policy to send a replacement ATM card internationally.
Mr C complained to the bank in December 2005, stating that he had not been informed of this policy when he obtained the card in 2002. He requested the bank to pay for half of a return airfare to New Zealand so that he could obtain a new card. He informed the bank that he would soon be coming to New Zealand to attend a family wedding, and that the bank ought to pay for his ticket back to Sydney (an amount of approximately $300).
When he arrived in Auckland in January 2006 he went to a local branch and collected his replacement card. Bank staff told him that the bank would not pay for his flight home because he was coming to New Zealand in any case. He subsequently posted an invoice for the cost of the flight to the bank, stating that he expected it to be paid within 21 days. Two weeks later the bank wrote to Mr C, saying that it would not be reimbursing him for the flight.
Mr C brought his complaint to me in April 2006. He said that the bank was aware that he was residing in Australia because his statements were sent to his home address there. He claimed that the bank ought, when issuing the card, to have informed him of its policy against posting ATM cards internationally. He explained that the main purpose of his visit to New Zealand in January 2006 was to sign his replacement card, and that he was not obliged to attend the family wedding there. Instead, there was to be a “reconfirmation of vows” ceremony in Sydney that he would have attended.
The bank apologised for its failure to explain the policy to Mr C, but considered that it had acted appropriately in the circumstances. It had made every effort to ensure that Mr C obtained his replacement card while in Auckland on holiday. Arrangements had been made for Mr C to collect the card on a Saturday from any New Zealand branch that he requested.
Although Mr C claimed that the primary purpose of his trip to New Zealand was to collect the card, I found this unlikely. If that had been his main purpose, I would have expected him to return to New Zealand shortly after his card expired in April 2005. Instead, he waited nine months to collect it. It did not appear that he was greatly inconvenienced by not having the replacement card during this period.
As Mr C’s postal address was in Australia, I would have expected the bank to inform him that his card was due to expire well before the expiry date. The bank should also have advised him that it would be unable to send a replacement card to Australia. This would have prevented the unpleasant surprise that Mr C faced while on holiday. However, the admitted failings on the bank’s part did not alter his situation. He would still have had to return to New Zealand. Accordingly, I found that the bank was not obliged to refund Mr C for the cost of the airfare. The parties accepted my findings.