She said the bank repeatedly threatened to close her accounts, intimidated her, and caused significant stress and anxiety. She wanted an apology and compensation. Susie later closed her accounts with the bank.

Our investigation

We found the bank was entitled to ask Susie for information about her transactions and employment as part of its account monitoring obligations. The requests were not arbitrary or unreasonable, and the bank was entitled to decide what information it needed to satisfy its requirements. However, we found the bank did not clearly and effectively explain what information it needed or why information she had already supplied was insufficient. Susie had told the bank, for example, that she had already supplied some information and asked for clarification about the additional] information it sought, but the bank often merely repeated its requests without adequately addressing the questions or points she had raised.

The result was that Susie remained unclear about the scope of the bank’s requests. The correspondence showed she repeatedly asked the bank to explain precisely what further information it required. We found the bank later gave clearer explanations about the information it needed and why some of Susie’s earlier responses were insufficient. However, these explanations came several weeks after Susie first questioned the requests.

We concluded the bank failed to communicate its requirements clearly and effectively. This caused Susie to spend unnecessary time seeking clarification and supplying information. We recommended the bank pay Susie $250 for the stress and inconvenience caused.

Outcome

The bank and Susie agreed with our recommendation, and the bank paid her $250.