Report comment

« A spokesperson for the Commonwealth Bank disputes some of Burge’s claims. The Commonwealth Bank reduced her debt by an amount greater than the Financial Ombudsman’s determination. »
That should read « The Commonwealth Bank claimed to the author that the bank reduced her debt ... »
This was one of the CBA's numerous lies to the author, whose feelers should have been more astute.
« "Commonwealth Bank always seeks to engage with customers early when they face financial difficulty," the spokesperson said. "This allows us to discuss various options with them, and to work through any hurdles that may arise in meeting their obligations." »
THis is of course the all-encompassing lie. Suzi Burge's debt could have been readily resolved. Instead, the bank, with his legals, set out to destroy her. Successfully.
As for the self-righteous claim that Suzi lost in various court hearings, as if that settles the matter (the courts as objective, detached) - again, rubbish.
There is nothing but skulduggery, corruption and sadism in the CBA's treatment of Suzi Burge.
This is a case where the Royal COmmission, in possession of the paper trail, could provide a representative case study of everything that is wrong with the banking sector and its mates who facilitate default and foreclosure, and the complicit layabouts in FOS who at best give the bank a limp slap on the wrist.