According to a statement issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on Monday, 7 November, between February 2015 and February 2019, NAB allegedly charged fees for some periodic payments even though customers were entitled to an exemption, and in some cases, “NAB charged a higher fee than it should have”.

“NAB overcharged 4,874 personal banking and 913 business banking customers a total of $365,454 in periodic payment fees,” ASIC had alleged.

“The continued charging of incorrect fees to customers when NAB knew it was occurring was concerning as it demonstrated that NAB was promoting its own interests over those of its customers. Disappointingly, it took NAB over two years to switch off the periodic payment fees after becoming aware of the issue,” said ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court.

“When there are system failures that cause customers to be incorrectly charged, steps must be taken to solve the problem in a timely manner to minimise consumer harm.”

ASIC’s allegation that NAB falsely represented to customers that it could charge fees for certain periodic payments under the bank’s terms and conditions, when it was not entitled to do so, was not sustained by the court.

In relation to the unconscionable conduct, Justice Roger Derrington said that the bank “took advantage of the customers’ continuing lack of knowledge, and acted in its own self-interest by continuing to operate a system which it knew wrongfully deducted sums from its customers’ accounts”.

According to His Honour, this conduct fell so far below the standards required of a bank’s obligations to its customers that it was unconscionable. It was deemed neither proper nor right according to ordinary commercial values in Australian society, and it was offensive to conscience.

VIEW ALL

“Once it [NAB] was aware that its systems were wrongly charging PP (periodic payment) fees to some clients who had no obligation to pay them, it was neither competent nor ethical to continue to charge them and to fail to inform them or advise them to review their accounts,” Derrington J espoused.

“Neither could it be said to be fair or honest. Compliance would require suitable remedial action to be undertaken with appropriate urgency once aware of the wrong it had done.”

Moreover, the court found that NAB’s unconscionable conduct contravened its obligations as an Australian financial services licensee to ensure that financial services covered by its licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly and to comply with the financial services laws.

However, Derrington J declined to make declarations of contravention on the basis that the conduct was the same.

The matter will be listed for a hearing on the scope of any further relief, including penalty on a date to be fixed.