In January 2026, the bank decided to close Jade’s accounts and cancel her home loan. It said it was not satisfied it had enough information to meet its anti-money laundering obligations. The bank told her she had to repay the loan with 30 days’ notice, and later extended the repayment deadline twice to allow Jade more time to get a loan at another bank.

Jade found another bank and repaid the loan. Jade’s first bank then demanded she repay part of the cash contribution she had received when she took out the loan. Jade complained that she had co-operated with the bank’s requests and said it was unfair that she had to repay the $5,900 when it was the bank that had chosen to close her accounts and end their relationship.

Our investigation

The bank's terms and conditions allowed it to cancel a lending facility in certain circumstances. The bank’s records showed it made several requests for documents and explanations about Jade’s finances and account activity. It explained why it needed the information and the consequences of not supplying it. The information and documents she gave the bank did not satisfy it that it had enough information to meet its obligations. In those circumstances, the bank’s terms and conditions gave it the right to close Jade’s accounts and cancel her home loan.

We found the bank's requests were reasonable in light of its obligations, and that its decision was not arbitrary, irrational or made in bad faith. We also found the bank communicated clearly with her and gave reasonable notice of its decision.

The cash contribution agreement said Jade would have to return a proportion of the contribution if the home loan was repaid within 36 months. Jade repaid the loan within that period. The agreement did not distinguish between different reasons for repayment of the loan. The bank was therefore entitled to recover a proportion of the contribution, and it was not unfair or unreasonable for it to do so.

Outcome

We did not uphold Jade’s complaint.