Company director failed to pursue complaint with reasonable diligence

Categories:

Advice & information, Lending, Fees, charges & rates,

Summary:

In October 2023, Tanner, a company director, complained to us on behalf of two companies about loans of $15.57 million the bank had given the companies the year before. Tanner said the bank failed to arrange fixed or capped interest rates. The bank replied in December saying it had offered the companies fixed-rate options, but that Tanner had failed to confirm whether the companies wanted to take up any of these options.

Published:

October 2026

The companies failed to meet their loan repayments, and in December 2025 the companies and the bank reached an agreement through farm debt mediation on a timeframe for repaying the debt, after which the bank would close their accounts and end the relationship. However, the companies failed to meet the terms of the settlement. In May 2026, Tanner again complained to us that the bank had failed to arrange fixed and capped rates in 2022. He also complained about the lending documents and how they were signed. In addition, he disputed a $62,000 payment and said the bank had overcharged a card facility. Finally, he said the bank tried to discourage him from pursuing the complaint.

The companies eventually went into receivership, but the receivers had no objection to Tanner pursuing the complaint on behalf of the companies.

Our investigation

We could find no evidence that Tanner challenged the bank’s response to his complaint in December 2023 or asked it to escalate it. He did not contact us again about the matter until March 2025, almost 17 months after first approaching us – and then it was by his father. We contacted him directly, but he did not respond. Only in May 2026 did he make contact.

Tanner’s explanation to us was that financial pressure and stress prevented him from contacting us or pursuing the complaint. However, we could find no evidence that these circumstances prevented him from making contact with us or the bank. Most of the events he complained about had taken place more than two years earlier. Our rules allow us to decline to consider a complaint if the customer was aware of the matters complained about for more than 12 months before making the complaint. We considered Tanner had not pursued his complaint with reasonable diligence.

The farm debt mediation settlement agreement contained a detailed breakdown of the companies’ debt. The amounts owing on the various loans were clearly agreed to. We saw nothing in the agreement or related documents showing the companies disputed any part of the debt. We considered there was no basis for us to examine these debts, which were clearly agreed to in the settlement agreement.