Stay informed Sign up for our newsletter and be the first to know.
Stay informed Sign up for our newsletter and be the first to know.
Brilliant Investment Thinking by Advisers for Advisers.
ASX
+0.33%
S&P
-1.01%
AUD
$0.69

Ombudsman seeks to simplify complaint treatment

Ombudsman seeks to simplify complaint treatment
Share
Print

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority, the external dispute resolution group of which all financial advisers must be members, this week announced significant changes to their assessment process of new complaints.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority, the external dispute resolution group of which all financial advisers must be members, this week announced significant changes to their assessment process of new complaints.

A wide-ranging review of the group highlighted issues occurring due to the actions of so-called ‘paid advocates’. These includes debt management and credit repair firms which had been lodging the bulk of claims, many of which were closed quickly, but ultimately taking up the time and resources of the group and reducing their ability to deal with larger issues.

A pilot program tested over recent years including the use of “merit assessment” in their early complaint reviews, with the approach ultimately found to make complaints handling “faster, cheaper and fairer” for all.

The key, the Authority said, was that an early merit assessment, rather than allowing the complaint to go through the standard process, would allow unmeritorious complaints to be identified early, primarily those were there is clearly no error, or financial loss.

Where it is found to be “without merit”, AFCA can discretionarily exclude it, something that reduced the fee charged by AFCA by as much as 75 per cent in a 3-month trial.

According to COO Justin Untersteiner, “our pilot was in direct response to feedback from members that the cost of paying for some determinations – the final, formal decision-making stage of our process – can outweigh the value of the initial service or product that was provided.”

Unfortunately, this resulted in many firms making a “commercial decision” to simply concede the complaint regardless of the merits.

With a large portion of complaints to AFCA being made against credit, superannuation and banking providers, “the issue was made worse by the conduct of a small number of third-party paid representatives using questionable tactics, with complainants refusing to consider a reasonable resolution in the earlier stages of AFCA’s process”, he said. 

According to the press release, “merit assessment will be applied in cases where sufficient information about a complaint is available at an early stage and it clearly shows there is no error and/or loss.

Complaints that raise more complex issues, with significant documentation involved, would still require an investigation to reach a view on what has most likely occurred.”

Share
Print

The wholesale loophole: same game, different name

While much progress has been made in the professionalism of advice, Jamie Nemtsas argues that the wholesale loophole threatens to unravel the industry.

Compo scheme leaves advisers and their clients in the lurch – again

Every time there’s a financial implosion triggering a claim on the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, it’s the innocent left picking up the pieces. Even...

Elephant leans on Shield/First Guardian dam wall, cracks it

Macquarie Investment Management has bowed to ASIC pressure and agreed to compensate fully the $321 million in losses its super fund members lost in the...

No more discussion: REs and managed funds must act on ASIC’s compliance-plan review

ASIC has uncovered widespread failings in the compliance frameworks of responsible entities (REs) overseeing nearly $1 trillion in managed funds. Firms have...