Clearing up a problem

The issue

The customer’s complaint concerned the deposit and clearance of cheques by the bank. The complaint consisted of three parts.

First, that the bank had delayed in clearing two of the customer’s cheques. The bank delayed in clearing one cheque for 12 days. When the customer investigated further, he found that on a previous occasion the bank had delayed in clearing another cheque for more than 100 days.

Second, he claimed it took the bank 37 days to inform him that a cheque deposited in his account had been dishonoured Third, the customer was concerned by the bank’s Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) Process and its inefficient handling of his complaint about the cheques.

Outcome

The Committee determined that the bank breached:
1. Clause 2.2

• The bank’s conduct towards the customer was contrary to the commitments contained in the bank’s Product Disclosure Statement.
• The bank’s conduct was not fair and reasonable as required by clause 2.2 of the Banking Code.
• The customer experienced inconvenience and financial detriment resulting from inadequate compliance by bank staff with cheque deposit procedures in its clearing department and at its local branch.
• This was compounded by the ineffective handling of the customer’s complaint.
• As a related issue, the Committee also noted the failure of the bank to promptly debit the customer’s account following the dishonour of a client’s cheque.

2. Clause 35

• The bank took 71 days to respond to the customer’s complaint, which is outside the maximum period of 45 days allowed under clause 35 of the Code.
• Additionally, the Committee considered that the bank’s response to the complaint did not adequately address the substance of the customer’s complaint. In particular, its response failed to explain the reason for the delay in crediting the cheques.
• The Committee considered that the bank’s IDR process was not effective on this occasion.

Remedial Action

Following the Committee’s Determination, the bank acknowledged its non-compliance and in response sent out communication to all branch staff to remind them of the bank’s process for depositing cheques. It also strengthened its investigation process of unmatched customer deposits and credited the customer with the interest for the additional days it took to clear the cheques.

Other case studies

On whose authority?

A financial counsellor complained to the Committee on behalf of his client. The counsellor claimed that despite him sending the bank a third party authority form for him to act on the client’s behalf, the bank continually contacted the customer directly.
Read the full case study

It makes you sick

A customer who suffered from ill health - including depression - complained about the bank’s behaviour in relation to his financial hardship and the repossession of his property.
Read the full case study