Our investigation
We looked at how the bank received the refixing instructions. The bank’s records showed Eric’s mortgage broker sent those instructions on Eric’s behalf and gave the bank Eric’s email authority. The records also showed Eric was in regular email contact with the broker while the refixing was being arranged. Eric had previously refinanced and refixed loans through the same broker. Responsibility for providing advice and recommendations about options, consequences and suitability lay with Eric’s broker.
The trust had several loans on different terms and rates. The broker told the bank he had recommended the loan structure because fixed rates offered certainty. In those circumstances, the bank could deal directly with the broker and was not required to check those instructions with Eric or give him separate, comparative advice or modelling.
The records showed the bank documented the changes in loan variation letters and refixed the loans on the terms requested. The broker also asked about early repayment charges, and the bank confirmed none would apply. Neither Eric nor his broker raised any objections with the bank at the time of the refixing or in the years immediately following April 2022.
We also considered Eric’s complaint that the bank’s conduct was oppressive. Such conduct is harsh, unconscionable, unjustly burdensome or in breach of reasonable standards of practice. Acting on clear instructions provided through a mortgage broker did not come close to that high threshold.
Outcome
Eric withdrew his complaint.
Print this page