Our investigation
Our rules prevented us from reviewing the bank's commercial judgment in setting its security requirements. We could, however, consider whether the bank clearly communicated its terms or gave misleading information. The bank first referred to the 80 per cent loan-to-value requirement in a call with Kayla in January 2025. It repeated this requirement in three subsequent emails before the purchase became unconditional. We therefore considered its communication about these matters had been clear.
We also found no evidence the bank agreed to release the $11,000 difference or to fund improvements to the home. The correspondence about the purchase price and the size of the loan showed that the bank had clearly told Kayla the maximum purchase price was $630,000. Before her offer became unconditional, it told her the loan could not exceed $495,200, which was 80 per cent of $619,000.
The records also showed Kayla first mentioned her inability to fund heating and ventilation work in a call after settlement. We were satisfied the bank communicated its lending terms clearly and did not mislead her. It also disbursed the sale proceeds in line with what it had told her.
Outcome
We did not uphold Kayla's complaint.
Print this page