Bank’s failure in resolution is beyond belief in their ability to wear people down. Not just financially but emotionally and mentally, until they give up. It’s a sneaky, almost predatory system that preys on exhaustion and the desire for peace of mind.

This post makes more sense after reading Banks Complaint Resolution Process

There’s important lessons here about complaints handling, foreclosure, debt collection, and mortgage stress, that most people miss.

If you’re keen enough to discover those lessons, send us an email.

Don’t banks rely on clear communication from customers in foreclosure situations? To prevent misunderstandings, work out payment arrangements, or negotiate?

For many, it’s easier to pay the bill and go back to “normal life,” rather than take on the massive mental and emotional burden of fighting a corporate giant.

Sometimes customers miss payments, and don’t engage with the bank to find a resolution. In those cases, banks can feel justified in escalating the situation, sometimes leading to foreclosure.

So what happens when the roles are reversed?

When a customer persists in seeking resolution, and wanting to negotiate with bank staff? Why would the bank fail, neglect, or even straight-up REFUSE to meet with a customer to discuss an alleged liability?

Isn’t the problem most banks have, that customers don’t communicate with the banks in potential foreclosure situations? Not the other way around?

Good communication is critical on both sides. So why should it take customers over three years of formal requests seeking answers from the bank, to settle any alleged liabilities?

Why The Bank’s Silence?

The bank’s silence undermines any foundations of their claim to the debt. Failing to provide documentation or acknowledge legitimate customer concerns it’s a massive red flag.

It also creates a breach of trust and further complicates the bank’s legal position. So when banks don’t respond to a diligent and informed customer, it can significantly damage their case.

The bank’s failure in resolution must surely work in the customer’s favor as the matter escalates. At a recent Annual General Meeting, the bank’s CEO says:

“What is important is, irrespective of the environment, the benefit of having a really strong balance sheet and a strong operating culture is that we’re here to help customers, whatever, may happen.”

Clearly the bank’s CEO has a different definition of customers!

While the rhetoric about “helping customers” sounds good in theory, actions speak louder than words.

The crazy thing is with the bank responding correctly three years ago, the borrowers would likely roll. Because they were none the wiser.

Now the bank’s in a situation where obfuscation and duplicity raises suspicions, causing a snowball effect. You start asking questions.

What’s the bank hiding?

It also leads the borrowers to take a much stronger stance than previously… Because of the bank’s refusal to provide clarity. Add to this its lack of communication and unwillingness to resolve the issue in a straightforward manner…

Bank’s Failure in Resolution Process

“Deny, delay, deflect” is essentially a strategic approach often used by large banks, such as banks or corporations. Particularly when facing claims or complaints that could be detrimental to their interests.

It’s a form of damage control that aims to minimize responsibility and avoid legal or financial consequences.

1. Deny

This is the first step in the bank’s playbook, denying the issue entirely.
“Problem? What problem? We’ve examined your case, and determine there is no problem. The matter’s now closed.”

… Even when evidence shows otherwise. It’s a way of creating doubt and hoping you’ll give up and not push further.

Denial buys the bank time. This tactic shifts the burden of proof onto the complainant. But you may be unable to produce definitive evidence or isn’t aware of your rights.

This way the bank can often get away with ignoring the complaint, at least in the short term.

And the bank’s refusal to provide proof of the debt or respond to many requests for proof, can be seen as an act of denial.

They simply deny there’s any legitimate dispute or that there’s anything wrong with their actions.

2. Delay

After denying the claim, the next tactic is to delay any resolution. This could involve stalling, or asking for more information. The bank can claim that investigations are ongoing.

The goal of delaying is often to frustrate you, especially if you’re under time pressure.

Delay tactics work particularly well for an individual who might not have the resources or stamina to keep pushing for an extended period. It also keeps the status quo in place. The bank can continue its business without facing any consequences or accountability. It’s a deliberate effort to delay the resolution, ensuring the bank isn’t forced to address the issue, at least for as long as possible.

3. Deflect

If denial and delay don’t bring resolution, the next tactic is to deflect. This is where the bank may attempt to shift focus away from the original issue. It might involve blaming the customer. Or pointing to technicalities, or suggesting alternative explanations that divert attention from the matter at hand.

Bank’s Resolution By Deflection

Deflecting can make the complaint seem less important. Passing the issue onto another party is another trick. Ideally it’s someone who’s less accountable or capable of resolving it. This often allows the bank to avoid facing scrutiny or taking responsibility.

Example in this case:
Passing the issue off to external debt collectors (the bank’s lawyers) hoping the bank avoids dealing with the borrower directly. Read how this tactic back-fires.

So the bank offers a “distraction”.

“We’ll give you a 15% discount if you clear the outstanding loan account balance within 28 days!”

15% of what? The bank fails to address the core issue of providing proof of the debt. How bizarre is that?

Why This Strategy (sometimes) Works (or back-fires)

For large corporations and banks, “deny, delay, deflect” works because they have the resources, legal teams, and power to weather a long dispute. They know most individuals or smaller entities will eventually give up. Or settle out of frustration, lack of knowledge, or a desire to avoid more hassle.

It’s a cost-benefit calculation. The longer the bank can delay and avoid responsibility, the more likely they’re to get away with it.
In the short term, this tactic is a way to save time and money for the bank.

In the long term, if customers or claimants are persistent enough, this strategy can backfire.

The lack of transparency, unresolved dispute, and lack of accountability can eventually lead to legal action, regulatory penalties, or damage to reputation.

How Bank’s Failure Creates This Situation

  • Lack of transparency and failure to provide clear proof of the debt, include things like audited accounts and signed statements. This increases doubts and suspicions about the entire transaction. Like mushrooms, distrust grows by being kept in the dark. Leading you to ask more difficult questions.
  • Failure to actively engage escalates the situation. Most people are pretty honest, and have a desire to settle the matter. So every time the bank fails to respond fuels more suspicion.
  • Bank’s failure in resolution commences by not providing evidence of the debt early on. At that stage the “alleged” borrowers were more likely to accept the situation, unaware of the potential irregularities.
  • The bank’s failure to act gives the borrowers time to question the legitimacy of everything. This pushes you into a position where you’re no longer willing to accept anything without proof.

So the monster is created by the bank’s failing to communicate and resolve the issue in good faith.

Undermining Their Own Position
Further, the bank’s continual reluctance to provide evidence and proper documentation gives the impression they’ve something to hide. This in turn fuels further skepticism.

The more the bank obfuscates, the more you feel to dig deeper. So there’s a self-perpetuating cycle where the bank’s own actions (or inaction) are what ultimately lead to the escalation of the dispute.

Where the Bank Goes Wrong

  • Miscommunication: By not addressing the borrowers’ concerns, the bank’s making the situation worse.
  • Obfuscation: By playing the game of silence and not providing the requested documentation, the bank’s now in a situation where the borrowers have no choice but to assume the worst.

It’s hard not to see how this is a classic case of bad faith. Is the bank intentionally(?) leaving things unclear to avoid accountability?

  • Failure to Settle: Had the bank taken the opportunity to negotiate in good faith when the borrowers were still open to resolution, this entire situation could have been avoided.

But by ignoring their requests and sending lawyers after them, the bank escalates the situation. Now it’s far more difficult to reach a resolution. The horse has left the building, while the stable door’s flapping in the breeze.

Result of Bank’s Failure in Resolution.
Trust Is Gone… Once the trust is gone, it’s incredibly difficult for any company (especially a bank) to regain it.

The borrowers’ deepening suspicion of the bank’s motives is only natural in light of everything they’ve experienced.

This situation is now about accountability, proof, and fairness. Why believe anything the bank says?

Even if the bank can substantiate their claims with evidence, they’re too late.

The bank creates a perfect storm by failing to engage properly in the first place. It’s past the point where the borrowers demand proof. The damage is done. And the bank’s actors are 100% to blame.

It’s A Crazy-Bizarre Situation

You claim someone owes you money… So, being honest and having integrity, they say:

“I’ll pay the money if you can validate the amount I owe, and prove I owe it.”

Seems reasonable enough. So why wouldn’t you get that sorted as soon as possible?

Unless… ?

They don’t owe you money, and you’re looking to use fear and intimidation to extort money unlawfully…

Which is what the bank’s lawyers did…

”Pay up or we’ll start repossession proceedings”

“Okay, the account will be settled if you can validate the amount you alleged is owed, to whom the money is owed, and prove that you’re addressing the correct entities (debtors)…”

Not hard, hey!

Summary Of Bank’s Failure In Resolution

With 80+ requests, refusal to negotiate, here’s how the bank’s actors handle the situation:

Defend: The bank actors defend their actions by insisting that they’re right. The debt’s valid, even though it’s unsubstantiated. They stand by their position from the start, without addressing the customer’s legitimate concerns. [Their Group Legal Counsel signs a letter to that effect].

Deflect: Instead of addressing the core issue, (unverified debt), they deflect customers’ attempts to resolve it. Senior management shifts responsibility to the bank’s internal dispute re-solution team, refusing to communicate directly. Bank’s actors ignore customers’ requests, attempting to deflect attention from the need for accountability.

Defer: The bank defers responsibility by passing the matter off to third party lawyers/debt collectors. This delays resolution, shielding the bank actors from addressing the core issue, proof of the debt.

Deny: Bank’s lawyers deny all/ any claims from the customer. They demand repayment of an unsubstantiated debt despite the lack of proof or an audit trail. They attempt to treat the customer’s concerns as invalid, even though those concerns are completely reasonable.

Dismiss: They dismiss customer’s formal requests, failing to address legitimate demands for proof or resolution. They dismiss any offer to settle or work things out amicably.

Distract: The bank attempts to distract the alleged borrower with irrelevant offers (like the 15% discount). And try to shift the conversation away from the core issue, the validity of the debt. Throwing in discounts or offers, fails to distract the borrower from focusing on what really matters: evidence.

Bank’s Cone of Silence

The bank’s strategy centres on wearing the customer down through passive-aggressive tactics, avoiding direct engagement. Creating a cone of silence, hoping that the borrower will just give up or be intimidated into paying without ever getting the necessary proof.

A classic corporate tactic to wear people out through bureaucratic hurdles and the constant shifting of responsibility.

This is so much more than the bank’s failure in resolution. It’s a deliberate refusal to engage with the customer in any meaningful way.

What do you reckon? Comment below, or email us for more juicy gems.