Our investigation

In examining the account opening documents, the account mandate and the bank’s terms and conditions, we found that both trustees had agreed that all signatories had to sign together to operate the account. We found the mandate applied to instructions about the account, not just transactions. We also found the death of one trustee did not change the mandate because the trust required a court appointment before a replacement trustee could be recognised. The bank was therefore entitled to require that there be two trustees before allowing access to the account.

During our review of the bank's records, we found the bank had allowed a payment to the Inland Revenue Department after Tara had supplied evidence of an overdue trust debt to the department. We found this was not evidence of inconsistency with the mandate but rather of the bank’s willingness to try to help Tara manage the trust’s obligations until a new trustee was appointed.

The records also showed the bank had seen the Māori Land Court order and kept a certified copy, rather than the original document itself. The bank had thus neither lost nor destroyed the original order, as Tara maintained. We also found the bank had met its obligation to provide account information through statements.

As for Tara’s branch visit, we found the staff member she dealt with could have handled the interaction more appropriately. In refusing to take copies of documents Tara produced about the trust, the staff member added to the distress Tara felt.  

Outcome

We upheld part of Tara’s complaint and recommended the bank pay her $250 for the way it handled the branch visit. Tara did not accept the recommended compensation.