NAB states in writing:
"These changes [allowing NAB to amend fees and charges] were communicated to customers in advance, including a variation notice outlining all changes within the required notification period".
NAB also states:
"NAB has complied with all notification requirements".
Let me connect the dots.
NAB states in writing (correctly or wrongly) that they have communicated to customers about fees and charges and complied with all notification requirements.
When could they possibly have done that?
In September 2025 or October 2025?
Is the following part of the "variation notice" that NAB refers to?
It was issued in September 2025 or early October 2025?
I am not aware of any more recent "variation notice".
If so, doesn't it stand to reason that those who contacted NAB in November 2025 did nothing more than extract from NAB helpful information about things that NAB had already done in September 2025 or October 2025?
How do the "poking the bear allegations" stand up against NAB's written factual matrix?
Hasn't the bear already demonstrated its hostile intent in September 2025 or early October 2025?
It's time for cardholders to stop squabbling with each other and unite against NAB.
At law, inaction is seldom the correct course of action.
By unite against NAB, I do not necessarily mean engaging with NAB now (at least not before we have a sensible discussion) but planning next steps so we do not get caught flat footed.
The following is AI generated but it is generally correct:
"The legal doctrine of
acquiescence means that a person loses their right to object to another's actions affecting their rights if they knowingly remain silent or inactive over time, effectively implying consent or permission, and allowing the other party to act to their detriment. It's an equitable principle, often linked with laches (unreasonable delay), preventing someone from "sleeping on their rights" and then later claiming them after others have invested resources or built expectations based on the inaction, commonly seen in property disputes,
intellectual property, and
international law"