Cory’s father later contacted the bank on his behalf about finding a buyer. The bank told him Cory would remain responsible for any shortfall between the loan balance and the sale proceeds. Cory then told the bank to sell the vehicle to a buyer he had found for $4,000. After the sale, a shortfall remained on the loan. Cory complained that he should not be liable for the shortfall. He said the bank failed to obtain the best price reasonably available for the vehicle and that he had relied on the bank’s valuation when arranging the sale.

Our investigation

The bank told Cory that the $4,000 estimate was based on the vehicle without its keys and that it would likely be valued higher with keys. The bank asked him to deliver the keys so a reassessment of the value could be conducted, but he did not do this.

Cory had exercised his right to require the bank to sell the vehicle to a buyer he had found for $4,000. Once Cory exercised that right, the bank was required to sell the vehicle to that buyer at that price. We found the bank had no obligation to run a separate sales process to see whether it could get a higher price from someone else.

Records of calls before the sale showed the bank explained that Cory would remain liable for any shortfall and cautioned that the $4,000 estimate reflected the vehicle's value without keys and that supplying the keys could result in a higher valuation. We found the bank had clearly communicated this information before the sale proceeded.

Our rules state that we cannot consider a complaint further if it has no reasonable prospect of success. We found that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and declined to consider it further.

Outcome

We could not consider Cory’s complaint further.