Mum awarded $10,000 after son blocks her access to money
The woman's son put a hold on her accessing money from her bank account. (File photo/ 123RF)
The woman said she was in a vulnerable position because she relied on her son.
A woman whose son blocked her transaction on an account, resulting in a hold being put on her money, has been awarded $10,000 in compensation from her bank.
The woman took her complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, which does not identify customers or the banks they complain about.
She opened accounts with the bank in 2021 and put $500,000 from the sale of a property into a term deposit.
Two years later, she went to a branch with her son, and asked that he was added to help her with her banking. She was 84 and had limited English.
She also gave him enduring power of attorney over her property.
A week later she opened a new account in her sole name and said any instructions from her son about the term deposits should be confirmed with her first.
She also raised a concern about her English signature being copied and asked the bank to use her Chinese signature.
In June 2024, she and her son asked the bank to send $250,000 from the term deposit to his Australian account and reinvested the rest.
Later that year, the woman and her daughter asked the bank to close the term deposit and put the money into her personal account.
Her son objected and the bank put a hold on the money.
The customer later revoked her son's enduring power of attorney and appointed two of her daughters instead.
The Banking Ombudsman said she complained the bank had not properly explained the implications of joint account ownership and she thought she was giving her son access to her accounts as a signatory, rather than a full joint account holder. She said it was not her intention for him to be able to prevent her from accessing her own funds.
The ombudsman scheme said it had to consider whether the bank acted with reasonable care and skill when it added the son as a joint account-holder and when the woman returned to the branch later.
"The bank's policy required staff to speak separately with the customer, explain the implications of joint ownership, and document the interaction," it said in its case note.
"The bank's policy was largely consistent with our expectations of what banks should do in this situation. However, the bank had kept limited documentary evidence about the steps it took to meet its obligations. We found there was no evidence that staff met separately with [the woman], explained the implications of what she proposed to do, or discussed other options such as using an authority to operate or power of attorney."
It said she was in a vulnerable position because she relied on her son to translate and he benefited from the changes.
"The bank did not confirm that [she] understood the implications or that the instructions were her own. There was no evidence that the bank had any discussions with [her] regarding other options available to her, such as giving [him] the authority to operate her account, or adding him as an enduring power of attorney. We found the bank failed to act with reasonable care and skill.
"When [she] returned to the branch on two occasions a week later, she raised concerns about the joint account and her signature, but the bank did not follow up or take any action. We found the bank failed to meet its obligations to act with reasonable care and skill on both occasions."
It said it could not say for sure what the woman would have done if the bank had acted appropriately initially.
"She trusted [her son] wanted him to help with her banking. When she visited the branch on two occasions a week later, we considered it likely [she] would have reassessed her banking arrangements if the bank had asked her about what she was trying to achieve by involving her son in her banking and then explaining in detail the various options available to her.
"What she would have done with this information is hard to say."
The ombudsman said the bank should take some responsibility for the situation she was in.
She was unable to access her money and might need to take legal action to regain control of it.
The ombudsman recommended the bank pay $10,000, the maximum amount it could award for stress and inconvenience.
