The bank rejected his request, saying its reporting of hardship during the monitoring period had benefited Trent and his wife because otherwise it would have been reporting that they were behind on monthly repayments because the bank's hardship assistance meant their loans exceeded their agreed limits.

Our investigation

Banks are required to provide credit reporting agencies with information about both the status of a credit account and the borrower's monthly payments. These statuses have different purposes. The payment status should accurately reflect whether monthly payments had been made.

The account status could report on the loans’ broader hardship-related position, including while the bank was monitoring them. However, Trent and his wife were no longer receiving repayment relief during the monitoring period. They made all required monthly payments, which had increased to maintain the original loan terms. The bank’s payment status reporting was therefore inaccurate and misleading. It should have recorded their repayments as up to date from July 2025.

As for whether the error caused Trent to miss out on loan applications or a job, the evidence provided did not establish this. However, the bank failed to answer Trent’s reasonable request for a letter confirming his repayment history, which he explained was necessary for his employment application. Its failure to respond added to his stress and inconvenience. We accepted that the reporting caused Trent and his wife stress and was upsetting. It also caused Trent additional inconvenience during the employment application process. We recommended the bank correct Trent’s and his wife’s credit reports, and also that it pay him $500 and her $200.

Outcome

Trent and his wife accepted our recommendation.