Couple’s failure to adequately follow up complaint with bank meant we couldn’t consider it

Categories:

Bank decisions, Lending,

Summary:

In April 2024, John and Michelle got into financial difficulty and the bank agreed to extend the loan on their farm on condition they sell their dairy herd. Shortly afterwards, Michelle suffered serious injuries that required hospital treatment and rehabilitation. In January 2025, the couple complained to the bank that it had, in effect, forced them to sell the herd while she was in hospital. They said the bank acted unfairly and did not properly consider a family member’s interest in buying it. They sought compensation for losses they attributed to the sale.

Published:

October 2026

In February 2025, the bank responded to their complaint, and in June 2025, the two sides entered farm debt mediation and agreed to a settlement that included a strategy to reduce the couple’s debt. In April 2026, they contacted us and complained that the bank had unfairly pressured them to sell the herd.

Our investigation

Rule 7 of our terms of reference allows us to refuse to consider a complaint if a complainant knew about the bank’s action or inaction for more than 12 months before complaining to us. The question we had to consider was whether John and Michelle had been reasonably diligent in pursuing their complaint before coming to us. If not, rule 7 applied and we would not be able to look into their complaint.

The matter they had complained about, the bank’s condition that they sell their herd in order to get an extension on their farm loan, happened in April 2024, two years before approaching us. They complained to the bank about this in January 2025 and received its response the following month. They subsequently agreed to attend farm debt mediation and in June 2025 reached a settlement with the bank that required them to repay the loan by June 2026.

We found no evidence that John and Michelle sought a further review of the bank’s 2025 response, or that they lodged a complaint or continued to challenge the bank’s position. Their later communications with the bank were about mediation, the subdivision of the farm, farming activities, repayment options and requests for more time. Nothing in those interactions related to pursuing the complaint about the bank’s requirement in April 2024 that they sell the herd.

Michelle’s injuries and rehabilitation explained why the couple did not make a complaint immediately. However, the couple did not contact us until 14 months after receiving the bank’s response, 10 months after going into mediation and shortly before the deadline stipulated by the mediation settlement. In short, we considered they had not pursued their complaint with reasonable diligence and that rule 7 therefore applied.