Devin was also the director of a company and a trustee of two trusts, which had floating rate loans with the bank. When interest rates fell in 2025, the loan repayments did not reduce, and some increased. When Devin queried this, the bank refunded some repayments to the company and one trust.

Devin said the bank gave inconsistent information about his credit card and wrongly kept it suspended. He also said the bank took unauthorised loan repayments. He said this reduced his cashflow and led to the cancellation of four insurance policies. He also complained that the bank took too long to deal with his complaint.

Our investigation

The credit card statements showed an amount due immediately, and separately a minimum payment due later. When Devin made payments, the bank applied these to the amount due immediately. The bank explained this to him by phone and later sent him a reconciliation statement. We found the bank acted in line with its terms and conditions and communicated clearly about the payments due.

Before suspending the card, the bank tried to contact Devin by text, phone and email. The emails warned him the card could be suspended. The terms and conditions allowed the bank to suspend the card while payments were overdue. Given the continuing arrears, we found the suspension was reasonable.

The terms of one trust's home loan stated that repayments would stay the same when the floating rate fell, so the loan would be repaid sooner. The bank followed the contract, and the trust did not suffer a loss.

As for the business loan agreements for the company and the other trust, these said repayments would be adjusted to reflect any changes in interest rates. The bank's policy was not to reduce repayments when rates fell. The agreements did not say this, and the bank did not tell the customers. We found the bank breached both agreements. We found the company had been correctly reimbursed, but the bank still had to reimburse $854 to the trust.

The bank took 11 weeks to give its final decision on Devin’s complaint. It said it took so long because of staff leave and the reassignment of the complaint to other staff. Given Devin's financial difficulty, we found this was an unreasonable length of time.

As for Devin's claim that the bank’s actions had resulted in the cancellation of his insurance policies, most of the overcharged repayments had been refunded before the policies were cancelled. The premiums were $3,300 a month, and Devin had wider cashflow difficulties. Reimbursing the outstanding $854.58 would not have kept the policies in place.

Devin had found the repayment errors himself, dealt with the bank and pursued the complaint on behalf of the trust and company. We recommended the bank pay him $1,000 for stress and inconvenience. We also recommended it repay the $854 the trust had overpaid.

Outcome

Devin accepted the bank’s offer of $1,854.