![]()
Submission 64 (FOS response) from the aborted White Collar Crime Inquiry...
FOS needs to be demolished in our view!!! here is the reason why:
FOS Banking Ombudsmen continue (three days ago) to insist the Broker is the Agent of
the Borrower;
THIS IS FALSE AND A GRAND FARCE.
In 2001 Colin Neave (Ombudsman) wrote to the Lenders as a clear warning: The
BANK is the Agent of the Borrower. That if banks were dragged into court on this
issue of suggesting the broker was the agent...they would lose the case.
Every FOS FILE needs to be re-investigated by independent investigators who understand the implications
for consumers re THE ARGUMENT OF AGENCY.
For a decade and a half FOS has been peddling the same nonsense. The Ombudsmen clearly cut and paste this
erroneous statement in EVERY DETERMINATION they deliver to the hapless consumer bank victims.
Call it a Bugger Orf document, consistent with ASIC nonsense.
WHY? Consumer Lawyers have written to FOS and complained as have I in many many submissions to Parliament. In Nov 2016, I took the trouble to write a sub to Treasury re the Ramsay review. It has gone missing! I have taken part in Treasury meetings and yet the SUB has yet to be loaded!
As president of BFCSA I have made adverse allegations about the service provided by FOS and the conduct, based upon the genuinely galling experiences of our members in dealing with these people.
The Ombudsmen DO NOT FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE COURTS.
Read the case of Schmidt and Violet Home loans 2010 Vic Sup Ct.
Then read Perpetual Trustees Vic (dodgy bros) vs BURNS WA Sup Ct 2015 (30 June)
These learned Judges spoke of the "Argument of Agency" misused by the Bank Lawyers to suggest the Broker/seller is the agent of the customer. These judges said it was "painfully obvious" the Master was the boss of the seller, due to the commissions being paid by the Lender. The Argument has served us well for four decades in that A servant cannot serve TWO MASTERS less there create a Conflict of Interest!!!
IN POINTS RAISED IN COURT CASES:
That the customer paid nothing for the services of the seller.
There are no agreements between seller and the bank client.
The sellers simply gather signatures and ID documentation (owed as a duty by the banks to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act) for the bank purpose, and then sends all docs gathered in a bundle to the Bank for processing.
The Bank APPROVES the LOAN not the Seller
The Fudged Income figures on ALL LAFs come from a bank engineered service calculator, designed to display secret
and devious futuristic income projections using NEG GEARING and other TAX swindles, without the knowledge or consent of the customer.
The customer is then denied access to these documents, by the Bank
The sellers is forbidden by the bank to pass these on, in case the customer then when seeing the fraud wishes to exit from the deal.
The Seller is at all times the AGENT of the BANK and the FOS is married to the Bank and ASIC!
ASIC is the one to grant FOS an annual renewal of licence for the EDR!!
When FOS decides it wishes to wake up and realise the entire files of dodgy Determinations will be exposed in the Royal Commission to its detriment, it may grow enough strength to do the right thing by the consumer victims of Banks. I have strong doubts re that metamorphism occurring.
FOS takes no notice of these Judges................
I am suggesting EVERY VICTIM OF FOS now write a letter to Ms Katy Gallagher as Shadow Minister and ask her politely to raise this serious issue in Parliamentary Question Time.
ANOTHER LIE IS THIS: Reviews concluded that EDR is working well and noted that the role we play is well supported by industry and consumer organisations.
Excuse me: ASIC and "friendly" over paid Government Consumer Orgs support this LIE re the erroneous interpretation of the Argument of Agency. The Courts have spoken and slammed dunked this nonsense.
Independent lawyers and Consumer Agents such as BFCSA (Largest group of borrowers in Australia) support the Judges' verdicts.
What does that tell you about corruption on the highest level of regulatory oversight.
Read more including the latest DUMB RESPONSE to BFCSA FROM FOS!!!
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/White_collar_crime/Submissions
Issues raised about FOS
As at the date of writing, three submissions to the Inquiry have made adverse allegations about the service provided by FOS and the conduct of FOS employees.
These allegations broadly assert that FOS fails to hold financial service providers to account in an appropriate manner including through being inconsistent with the law or applying it incorrectly, being biased towards the financial services providers, and having a lack of transparency about how we conducts our operations.
Our response
FOS rejects all of the allegations contained within the three submissions. Many of the issues raised have already been subject to review in recent public committees or inquiries. Recent findings by the Financial Services Inquiry (FSI), the Senate Committee Inquiry into the Performance of ASIC, and the FOS Independent Review, confirmed the important role that FOS plays in providing consumer redress, concluded that EDR is working well and noted that the role we play is well supported by industry and consumer organisations.
