Evidence demonstrated knowledge of three increases to joint lending

Categories:

Advice & information, Bank decisions, Lending,

Summary:

In May 2020, Jazmin and her then partner jointly borrowed $100,000 to buy a property. In August of that year, a $5,000 loan top-up increased the amount of lending secured against the property. In June 2022, the lending increased by a further $80,000, and a $20,000 revolving credit facility was also added in May 2023. After the couple separated in October 2025, Jazmin told the bank her partner had obtained the three increases to their joint lending without her knowledge or consent. She sought compensation of $87,500.

Published:

September 2026

Our investigation

Jazmin told us she had no recollection of consenting to the increases, and that the bank was unable to supply direct evidence that she had typed her signature on the joint applications to increase the lending.

We considered all the available information and found compelling evidence that, on each of the three occasions, it was more likely than not that Jazmin had consented to the increases. The 2020 application contained a handwritten signature attributed to her, which she accepted appeared to be hers. She also had access to the loan account and regularly used the joint account that received the loan top-up funds.

Although the bank could not produce a copy of the 2022 application, available records showed Jazmin had continued access to the home loan account and the joint account that received the proceeds of the $80,000 increase. The loan repayments had increased substantially after this top-up was approved, and she had continued to use the joint accounts without complaint until 2025.

As for the $20,000 revolving credit facility in 2023, Jazmin was actively involved in the application process and gave supporting information directly to the bank. After the facility was established, she used it regularly and made numerous transfers out of the account.

We therefore found that Jazmin knew about and agreed to each of the increases. The bank was entitled to hold Jazmin liable for the lending and was not required to compensate her.