T
Small groups such as BFCSA (Inc) only come into being when public need arises due to poor handling of complaints and evidence of fraud emerges as a key factor. Our consumers have given the EDR system a rating of less than 10% for a number of reasons of dissatisfaction.
The LF Economics submission # 63 of the current Senate ‘Penalties for White Collar Crime’ Inquiry highlights the emerging patterns relating to the existence of a Control Fraud in play.
FOS and the CIO have failed to notify the regulators Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”), of the strong evidence of systemic fraud in the approval process by Lenders. The public has suffered a palsy of information, leading vulnerable consumers to become aware of the existence of Ponzi Financing and fraud, only by falling into the easily identifiable traps. Consumers are not told that lenders are acting as a Cartel, using identical processing methods, calculators and highly questionable marketing techniques.
These toxic mortgage products are still being sold in the market place. The Banks contribute $34 million in funds provided to FOS, and thereby create an extraordinary conflict of interest to the extent complaint handling becomes an essential component of the lender generated Control Fraud.
The EDR Culture is mirroring the Lender and Regulator cultures whereby consumer complaint handling is dictated to by the Lenders as to bank ‘fairness’. This culture is reflected on the statistics gleaned from BFCSA Surveys:
· The average loss or potential for loss is reported as $180,000
· Loss can be as high as $450,000.
· FOS Determinations show mostly Maladministration in Lending
· Loans ought to have been rejected. Financial Loss/ruin established.
· Compensation then cut down to $20,000 - $60,000 discount.
· Customers feel they have been robbed and complain back to ASIC.BFCSA SUBMISSION TO RAMSAY REVIEW OF EDR SYSTEM
7th October, 2016 Ms Denise L Brailey denise@bfcsa.com.au Mob 0401 642 344
The Financial Ombudsman’s Service (“FOS”) and the Credit Industry Ombudsman (“CIO”) were part of a regulatory grand plan to assist consumers with basic complaints against Banks and Lenders. These two External Dispute Resolution services (“EDRs”) have become the defacto Gatekeepers for consumers and yet, according to the Determination files, both have systematically succeeded in tarnishing the original concept of consumer protection. Their periodical feedback to the regulatory authorities have assisted in clouding the real problems within the system and has, during the past decade, created an overflow of complaints from consumers relating to EDRs.
Consequently, this unfair decision making has led consumers to band together and lobby for a Royal Commission into the Banking and Finance Industries. I would respectfully ask that the Panel seriously listen to the voices of long suffering consumers who are now facing homelessness and financial ruin, and their cries for a better system of governance.
Small groups such as BFCSA (Inc) only come into being when public need arises due to poor handling of complaints and evidence of fraud emerges as a key factor. Our consumers have given the EDR system a rating of less than 10% for a number of reasons of dissatisfaction.
The LF Economics submission # 63 of the current Senate ‘Penalties for White Collar Crime’ Inquiry highlights the emerging patterns relating to the existence of a Control Fraud in play.
FOS and the CIO have failed to notify the regulators Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”), of the strong evidence of systemic fraud in the approval process by Lenders. The public has suffered a palsy of information, leading vulnerable consumers to become aware of the existence of Ponzi Financing and fraud, only by falling into the easily identifiable traps. Consumers are not told that lenders are acting as a Cartel, using identical processing methods, calculators and highly questionable marketing techniques.
These toxic mortgage products are still being sold in the market place. The Banks contribute $34 million in funds provided to FOS, and thereby create an extraordinary conflict of interest to the extent complaint handling becomes an essential component of the lender generated Control Fraud.
The EDR Culture is mirroring the Lender and Regulator cultures whereby consumer complaint handling is dictated to by the Lenders as to bank ‘fairness’. This culture is reflected on the statistics gleaned from BFCSA Surveys:
· The average loss or potential for loss is reported as $180,000
· Loss can be as high as $450,000.
· FOS Determinations show mostly Maladministration in Lending
· Loans ought to have been rejected. Financial Loss/ruin established.
· Compensation then cut down to $20,000 - $60,000 discount.
· Customers feel they have been robbed and complain back to ASIC.
Clearly, there is a complete disregard of FAIRNESS in any of the transactions uncovered.
Lenders in 2003, identified and exploited the target market as being Asset Rich Income Poor (“ARIPs”): those on disabilities with accident pay-outs, low income families with existing home ownership, including TPI war veterans. The actual target is in fact the asset: the family home owned by older persons who are predominantly debt free. Such activities are deemed by the courts to be predatory lending. The Cartel controlled the thoughts and actions of the EDRs. Full 14 page Report released to BFCSA paid up Members