Bank’s handling of identity verification call mainly correct and compensation offer terms reasonable

Categories:

Service channel, Service problems, Advice & information,

Summary:

Ian and his wife Nicole had joint accounts with the bank. In July 2025, Ian called about a delay with Nicole’s replacement debit card. The bank cancelled the card that had been dispatched and arranged another card to arrive by courier. A week later, a card arrived in their letterbox, but they were unsure which card it was. During a long call to the bank, Nicole was initially unable to complete the bank’s verification process, and the bank temporarily suspended access to her internet banking and banking app. Ian and Nicole later complained about the staff member’s conduct during the call and about the bank’s offer of compensation.

Published:

May 2026

Our investigation

Ian and Nicole said the bank’s staff member had no need to insist on speaking directly to Nicole, given Ian was a joint account holder and Nicole was unwell. The card was in Nicole’s name. We found the bank did not have to act on Ian’s instructions about Nicole’s card merely because they had a joint account. Given Nicole was present and able to speak, it was not unreasonable for the staff member to insist on following the bank’s usual verification process.

We reviewed the verification steps the staff member used during the call. Nicole was not registered for voice identification, but she was registered for telephone banking and had a telephone banking PIN. She did not enter the correct PIN. Ian and Nicole said Nicole should not have had to enter a PIN. However, this was a legitimate and integral part of the verification process, and we could see no reason to object to entering it, particularly since Nicole entered it into a secure, automated system rather than disclosing it to the staff member. We did, however, consider that the staff member could have explained the process for entering the PIN more clearly.

We also looked at the temporary suspension of Nicole’s access to her internet banking and banking app. At that stage of the call, she had not passed the verification process, Ian was objecting to the questions being asked, and the staff member was concerned someone else might be using her credentials. The bank’s terms allowed it to suspend access, and the staff member removed the suspension as soon as Nicole answered the verification questions correctly later in the call.

Finally, we considered how the bank dealt with Ian’s concerns after the call. The staff member did not arrange for a manager to call back or lodge their complaint as promised. However, a manager contacted Ian and Nicole within six working days, apologised for the staff member’s manner, explained that the staff member had been given coaching, and gave them $100 for the inconvenience the bank had caused them. Ian and Nicole said they felt the bank’s later offer of $1,000 was like a bribe or gag order, and they considered it disrespectful. However, we found the way the bank responded to their complaint was not unreasonable. Ian and Nicole did not accept the bank’s offer of $1,000.