‘We just wanted this to finish’: Distressed son tells hearing of bank’s ‘threats’ against family

THE banking royal commission has heard Suncorp “threatened” to seize a widow’s home following her husband’s sudden death.

SUNCORP threatened to sell the house of a distressed woman who had just lost her husband in a workplace accident, the banking royal commission heard today.

Taking to the witness stand, a visibly emotional Rien Low told the hearing his father Peter Low died in November 2015 — and shortly after, the bank began hassling his mother over Mr Low’s debts.

After his father’s sudden death, Rien Low looked into his parents’ financial affairs on his distraught mother Jennifer Low’s behalf.

He discovered his father had secured five separate loans with Suncorp in 2013 and 2014, with a combined debt of around $1 million, which his mother was not aware of.

• ‘Millionaire by 21’: Teen makes $1800 an hour

• The question to ask before resigning

• Macca’s customers sue over burgers

The Lows had assets including a family home, a Queensland holiday home and a block of land owned by a self managed superannuation fund.

Mr Low, a TV producer, called the bank to discuss his mother’s situation, and was told to sell the family home to repay the debts.

“The was the extent of the conversation ... I wasn’t happy with that solution,” he told the hearing.

The family then requested a 12-month pause on the loan repayments via a hardship application form they found themselves on the bank’s website.

Despite Mrs Low being $3000 short of meeting the repayments, the request was refused — although the bank did agree to a four month reprieve.

“It made her very worried at a time she should not have been worrying, a month after losing dad. It made her very stressed,” Mr Low said.

Nevertheless, the family accepted the offer and Mr Low tried to consolidate the loans, which were accruing $1200 in interest per week.

Again, the bank refused, and Mr Low made an official complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), claiming the five loans approved to his father had been lent irresponsibly.

FOS ruled the first four loans were above board, but found the fifth had been irresponsible.

That 2014 loan for $240,000 had been made to allow the Lows to build a warehouse on their block of land, which was the same purpose as the fourth loan.

Mr Low was unhappy with the decision, but decided to sell the family home, which would raise around $800,000 and would repay the first four loans.

After receiving an offer (which ultimately fell through), Mr Low informed the bank of the situation — and the bank did not respond well.

“They reiterated to me ... they had the power to cancel the sale, evict my mum from the house and sell it,” he said.

Witness Rien Low grew emotional during his testimony.

“I was shocked to begin with; I was just very worried. We felt we were doing the right thing ... I was very taken aback as I had come to the bank with a solution, and they weren’t working with me as a team.

“They were constantly reminding me of the power they had and what they could do.”

After an appeal, FOS ruled the first four loans needed to be repaid, but called for debt to be reduced by the amount of interest the Lows had already paid on the fifth, as well as interest and fees to be stopped on the repayments.

The family then suggested they sell the family home for $815,000, which would repay the first four loans and leave Mrs Low with $30,000 to cover rent and living expenses.

Suncorp said it would accept the offer, provided the family repay the final loan within six months.

Mr Low offered to pay $1001 per month towards that loan — which was the same amount that had been repaid originally — but the bank refused.

After the home was sold, Suncorp told the family it would not release the proceeds of the sale unless the final loan was repaid within a year.

As another added insult, Mr Low then received a letter from Suncorp’s banking and wealth division CEO David Carter addressed to both his mother and his late father in 2017, which offered to reduce the repayments to $792 per month.

But when the bank rang to discuss the offer, the person speaking with the Lows made a completely different suggestion and apparently was unaware of Mr Carter’s letter.

When describing the situation, Mr Low said: “Frustrating would be an understatement. This takes a lot out of someone,” he said.

“Who is running this bank? I was extremely concerned; I was worried.”

The bank finally came back with a new proposal — to allow the loan to be repaid in five years if it was secured against the Queensland holiday home, or in two if it was secured against the block of land.

However, those offers depended on Mrs Low signing a confidentiality clause and withdrawing a complaint against the bank in the credit and investment ombudsman.

“It was a kind of a threat,” Mr Low said. “We didn’t respond well, and we became very nervous.”

Mr Low became noticeably upset as he described the toll the situation with the bank had taken on his whole family, at times pausing to regain his composure.

He said he had spoken with up to 20 Suncorp employees since the saga began and had devoted “hundreds” of hours to attempt to resolve the issue.

“The impact it’s had on mum — she’s not here today [at the commission] because of the pressure and the expectations — everything has taken its toll on her. It’s taken its toll on all of us,” he said.

“It’s been very, very stressful and a lot of pressure trying to live a normal life.

“I don’t believe Suncorp has shown us any compassion at all as humans.”

Mr Carter will respond to Mr Low’s accusations this afternoon.

[e-mail]