Banking on nothing to hide, while making a legitimate claim regarding an alleged outstanding debt… Why might the bank be unwilling to supply audited accounts or fail to respond to requests for evidence?

At first glance, one might assume that by withholding evidence, the bank’s engaged in some form of deliberate obfuscation or malpractice.

Requests for documents such as audited accounts might need to go through various departments before they are fulfilled, which can lead to delays.

Perhaps the bank’s experiencing an internal backlog of work, or the person responsible for handling such requests may be unavailable.

Another factor that could be at play is the bank’s concern for data protection and privacy. Financial institutions are heavily regulated with respect to the confidentiality of their clients’ financial information, and they must adhere to strict data protection laws.

Banking On Nothing To Hide

Banking on nothing to hide, they may be hesitant to release anything without first verifying the identity and authority of the requesting party. Banks are subject to a wide range of laws and regulations. So perhaps legal and compliance concerns explain the bank’s reluctance to release audited accounts or debt-related documents.

If the debt is part of an ongoing legal dispute, investigation, or audit, the bank may be reluctant to give too much away.

If the debt’s subject to litigation, the bank may be legally prohibited from disclosing any information until the matter is resolved. Even if the bank has no intention of hiding anything, they may be constrained by the legal framework in which they operate.

Sometimes the failure to provide requested evidence reflects a problem with internal disorganization or communication failures within the bank. Miscommunication or a lack of coordination between departments can lead to delays, misplaced requests, or a failure to respond altogether. This kind of internal mismanagement can create significant barriers to obtaining timely information.

The bank may simply be avoiding disclosure due to concerns over the accuracy or completeness of their own records.

It’s possible the bank’s financial records, aren’t fully up to date, or contain discrepancies.

If the bank’s aware of errors or inconsistencies in their own documentation, they may choose not to release any information until they’ve had the opportunity to correct or clarify those issues.

So failure to provide evidence isn’t necessarily a matter of intentional withholding but rather a reluctance to share incomplete or inaccurate information.

Banking On Strategy

Another reason for the bank’s refusal to provide evidence could be a strategic decision to withhold documents.

Releasing detailed financial information might weaken the Bank’s negotiating position or adversely affect their legal standing. By withholding information, they might hope to gain a more favourable settlement outcome. Or avoid making concessions that could weaken their position.

Or maybe the bank’s stalling, hoping the alleged debtor will stop pursuing the matter, if the process is drawn out.

The lack of response may simply be the result of clerical or human error.

Even in highly regulated industries, mistakes happen. Banks do make mistakes.

Your request may have been overlooked, misfiled, or mishandled by a staff member. This kind of error, while unfortunate, is not uncommon and might be corrected once brought to the bank’s attention.

The bank could be making a legitimate claim regarding an alleged outstanding debt.

These are some reasons why the bank’s withholding evidence and/or audited accounts.

However, the bank’s actions may not necessarily be indicative of any wrongdoing. Instead, they may be the result of systemic issues, legal constraints, or procedural barriers.

In such cases, you may need to persist with formal follow-ups. Like escalating the matter to higher levels of management. Or you could try seeking external assistance, such a financial ombudsman, to ensure that your request is appropriately handled.

But don’t go to AFCA… After waiting for over four months, they’ll tell you the matter is outside their jurisdiction…