Bank wrong to withhold information from account holder about investigation into disputed transactions

Categories:

Bank accounts, Cards, Bank decisions,

Summary:

Henry had a credit card account with the bank, and his partner Dana was an additional cardholder. In late 2025, unauthorised transactions occurred on Dana’s card, and Henry raised the disputed transactions with the bank. The bank investigated the disputed transactions, contacted Dana for information, and later refunded the transactions. During the process, the bank dealt only with Dana and refused to have any contact with Henry or give him any information about the disputed transactions, citing privacy considerations. Henry complained that, as the account holder responsible for the debt, he should have been given information about the transactions, the refunds, and whether Dana’s card had been restricted to prevent any further loss.

Published:

April 2026

Our investigation

We examined the bank’s credit card terms and conditions and found that an “additional cardholder” had “no authority over the card account”, and that the account holder was responsible for the actions of each additional cardholder. We asked the bank why, given this responsibility, it would not supply Henry with information about the disputed transactions, an itemised summary of the refunds, and confirmation of any restrictions placed on Dana’s card. The bank responded that staff had misunderstood and misapplied its internal policy. It said it would provide further staff training and review whether its policy was sufficiently clear. The bank then gave Henry information reconciling the refunded transactions, confirmed it had restricted Dana’s card for online transactions, and offered $1,000 as compensation for the stress and inconvenience it had caused.