Automated Banking Systems Generate Cookie-Cutter Responses to Financial Hardship
Australia’s banking sector is facing mounting criticism as automated systems fail to provide adequate responses to customers experiencing financial hardship. Despite regulatory pressure and multiple warnings, major financial institutions continue to use digital processing systems that generate generic responses without accounting for individual circumstances, leaving thousands of vulnerable customers without meaningful assistance.
New data reveals that nearly 2,900 customers complained their bank had failed to respond to hardship pleas in 2024-25, marking the fourth consecutive year of increasing non-responses. This trend persists despite lenders’ legal obligations to consider hardship requests, highlighting systemic failures in how financial institutions handle customer distress situations.
Regulatory Scrutiny Intensifies as Complaint Numbers Rise
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (Afca) has documented concerning patterns in how banks handle hardship requests. Lead ombudsman Natalie Cameron emphasized that “people’s requests for hardship assistance are still not being met … despite sustained regulatory scrutiny and targeted efforts.” The situation reflects broader industry challenges in balancing automation with human oversight.
Financial Counselling Australia CEO Domenique Meyrick described the situation as “off the charts in terms of bad,” noting that customer assistance teams often lack proper training, licensing, or institutional support. This systemic failure forces customers to fall through the cracks, potentially damaging their financial futures and trust in the banking system.
Technological Solutions Creating New Problems
While larger banks rely on automated systems that produce inadequate “cookie cutter” responses, smaller lenders often lack even basic technological infrastructure to handle hardship requests. This technological gap in the banking sector creates uncertainty for customers who need personalized assistance during difficult financial periods.
The consequences extend beyond customer frustration. Failing to respond appropriately to hardship requests can push customers toward higher-risk borrowing options to avoid defaulting, ultimately worsening their financial situations. As Meyrick noted, “Not only is it exacerbating the stress and damaging trust – it can actually lead, in a very tangible way, to people’s financial situation becoming worse.”
Regulatory Actions and Penalties Mount
Banks face increasing pressure from multiple fronts, including the corporate regulator, Afca’s annual warnings, and advocacy from financial counselors. Significant penalties have already been levied, with ANZ paying a $40 million penalty and NAB paying $15.5 million over poor hardship support processes. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (Asic) has also brought proceedings against Westpac, which remain before the courts.
Despite these actions, the problem persists. As financial counselor Claire Tacon observed, “It’s really disappointing that people are coming to us after trying to resolve their issue with the banks, speaking to the hardship department there, but coming away not being assisted and not knowing what their rights are.”
Broader Implications for Financial Technology
The crisis in hardship request handling reflects larger questions about how technology is implemented in sensitive financial contexts. While automation can improve efficiency, the current situation demonstrates that technological advancement must be balanced with human judgment and empathy.
Similar challenges are emerging across the financial technology landscape, where computing power increasingly drives decision-making in areas requiring nuanced understanding of individual circumstances. The banking sector’s struggle highlights the need for more sophisticated approaches that combine technological efficiency with human compassion.
Path Forward: Balancing Technology and Human Touch
Industry experts emphasize the need for a fundamental shift toward more tailored, empathetic responses that recognize the complexity of individual circumstances. As Cameron stated, “We need to see a shift toward more tailored, empathetic responses that recognise the complexity of people’s circumstances and offer genuine help when it’s needed most.”
The solution may lie in better integration of automation with human oversight, creating systems that leverage technological efficiency while maintaining the capacity for personalized assessment and response. This balanced approach could help address the current crisis while setting new standards for customer care in the digital banking era.
For customers facing unresponsive banks, financial counselors recommend contacting Afca directly. As Tacon noted, “Afca will contact the bank [then] usually it is resolved, but it’s later than it should have been, and it’s after a lot of stress and worry for the customer.” The ongoing situation underscores the critical need for systemic reform in how financial institutions handle customer hardship through both technological and human channels.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
