(Civil Appeal Authority 3394/13 Bank Hapoalim in Tax Appeal v. Adv. Chaim Spiegel, Executor of the Estate of the Late Sprinza Tikva Schechter (2013)).
- Similarly, I did not find a flaw in the defendant's decision to issue the plaintiff a debit credit card. Horn, the deputy manager of the branch at the time, testified that she considered the matter and took into account the plaintiff's income, and in direct continuation of the events described above, she offered to issue him a credit card of this type (p. 59 of the transcript, paras. 18-20, 26-28).
From the evidence that was brought before me, it appears that the defendant's considerations were pertinent. No basis was presented for the existence of extraneous considerations or for deviation from the reasonable discretion given to the defendant, and the issuance of a debit card was, in the circumstances of the case, a considered and proportionate decision.
The fact that in the past the plaintiff held a regular credit card with different conditions does not indicate that the defendant is obligated to allow the plaintiff to continue using a credit card of the same type permanently. A bank's considerations can change from time to time according to the assessments it makes from time to time about the situation of its customers. In our case, it was proven that the state of affairs did indeed change, and in view of the plaintiff's prima facie cognitive state at that time, as the defendant's representatives directly impressioned of him, I accept the defendant's conclusion that there was a risk of debt creation in the bank account and the defendant's inability to collect it.
It should be noted that the defendant offered to issue the plaintiff a regular credit card against financial collateral, but the plaintiff refused to do so (see p. 2 of the minutes of the hearing of March 20, 2023).
In view of the aforesaid, I have found no reason to determine that the defendant's decision was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.