Bank unreasonable and uncommunicative over order freezing couple’s accounts

Categories:

Advice & information, Bank accounts, Closing/Freezing accounts,

Summary:

In October 2025, a lawyer served a court order on the bank freezing accounts held by Clifford and his wife. Despite freezing the accounts, the order allowed the couple to withdraw enough money to cover their ordinary living expenses. Clifford complained that the bank prevented them from accessing money for living costs.

Published:

September 2026

He also complained that its communication about the effect of the order was poor, that it disclosed account information to the opposing lawyer, that it transferred money without their authority, and that it was slow to restore their access to the accounts after the order was lifted. The bank accepted it had made mistakes during its handling of the matter and apologised for this fact, offering $500 as compensation. Clifford rejected the bank’s offer and complained to us.

Our investigation

There was no dispute about the fact the bank had to act on the order and freeze the accounts. However, the Code of Banking Practice also required the bank to treat Clifford and his wife fairly and reasonably, and to communicate with them clearly and effectively about its actions in response to the order. The bank’s initial information to Clifford was unclear about the effect of the order, and did not identify the affected accounts or explain how it would handle their requests for funds for living expenses. We considered the bank’s communication throughout the period of the freeze was neither clear nor effective.

The court order expressly allowed Clifford and his wife to draw on money in the accounts for ordinary living expenses. The bank maintained that it needed written agreement from the opposing lawyer before releasing any funds. However the terms of the order did not support such a stipulation. Clifford and his lawyer repeatedly sought access to living expenses. The bank delayed any substantive response to these requests, denying Clifford and his wife access to money for living expenses, other than to meet their mortgage payments, for 18 days. Had it met its obligations to treat Clifford and his wife fairly and reasonably, they would have had this access within a much shorter timeframe.

We also found the bank made an error by disclosing account balance information to the opposing lawyer. Furthermore, the bank had not clearly communicated what evidence it needed confirming the order had been lifted and what steps were involved in unfreezing the accounts.

The bank offered to pay the couple’s legal costs of $2,044 (incurred by their lawyer repeatedly contacting the bank) and to pay them $2,000 for the stress and inconvenience it had caused them.