In 2026, Brock and Marleem complained that they had included their friend on the loan application only so they could be sure of getting the loan because Marleem had a poor credit rating at the time. They said thought the bank should have removed their friend as a borrower and registered owner in 2009 and replaced him with Marleem.

After noticing that the priority amount recorded on the property’s title was higher than the amount advanced under the home loan, Brock and Marleem said they also suspected that Marleem’s personal loan might have been secured by the bank’s mortgage over the property without either of their knowledge.

Our investigation

Our rules do not allow us to consider a complaint if a customer became aware more than six years earlier of the bank’s actions that form the basis of their complaint.

Brock had begun questioning the bank about the home loan and ownership arrangements in 2011. In 2016, both Brock and Marleem told the bank they were unhappy that their friend remained a borrower and registered owner despite not contributing to the home loan repayments. They asked the bank to replace him with Marleem, but the bank said they would need to find their friend and get legal advice. Despite these conversations, Brock and Marleem did not complain to us until July 2026, almost 10 years later.

Brock and Marleem argued that the six-year period should begin in 2026 when they began to suspect a possible connection between the home loan and Marleem’s personal loan. However, both loans were drawn down 19 years ago, and their new suspicion that they might have been linked did not restart the six-year time limit.

Outcome

We could not consider Brock and Marleem’s complaint.