The performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Inquiry
Submission 156 - Attachment 1
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION TO PARLIAMENT
by Denise Brailey
20th February 2014
Regulatory neglect has caused financial losses for ordinary citizens from a recorded $1.5 billion in 2001, to $80 billion by 2007 and today, those figures have risen yet again.
In 2013 The Chairman asked that I meet with his Commissioner. I advised the lawyer I was preparing to lightly redact some copies of 2000 emails I had received. The internal emails were written by Bank Officers known as BDM’s, and sent to all brokers. BDM’s were offering to write up applications to save time. I prepared 200 for ASIC and presented them to the Commissioner.
There are six emails and letter of instructions between ASIC and me. ASIC main focus was stated as “the emails” not the Loan Application Forms. ASIC had many copies of LAFs. I had loaded many of the LAFs onto my website and ASIC already had over 80 copies from the 150 complaints they had received from BFCSA members re fraud and forgery pre July 2012. . The evidence I had spoken of to the Senate was of the 2000 emails from Banks to Broker Channel. ASIC is playing games. I delivered the bank emails to ASIC as instructed by their own lawyer.
ASIC is saying the SERVICE CALCULATOR is just a mere guide. This is simple misleading the Parliament. As the emails from Banks to Brokers state: “you must attach the Service Calculator to the LAF, or we will not process your deal.” All Lenders are saying to Brokers they must use the service calculator and the worksheet and attach to the LAF.
The Financial Ombudsman’s Service
FOS reports a raft of systemic issues regarding Low Docs. ASIC do not advise Parliament. There has been a mounting set of key indicators to suggest foul play in the banking sector since the initial 2003 Low Doc report, commissioned by ASIC and written by Karen Cox.
There have been six cases won in the courts - Consumer’s vs Lenders. Judges have found the Broker to be the Agent of the Lender. FOS has a duty to follow the lead of the courts and stands accused of cherry-picking arguments that favour the Banks, evidenced by recent Determinations.
Currently, FOS is taking advice from a “banking expert” who is seconded to FOS from Major Lender and has permitted access to files as we understand. This is unacceptable.
Recently, we came across the hidden PILOT PROGRAM, FOS had launched in July 2013 to the benefit of the Lenders and the detriment of Consumers.
FOS is also asking trick questions including: “Did you sign a Blank Form?” This question can be asked two ways and arrive at two different answers. Why? Most people only ever saw three pages of the LAF. Brokers I have spoken to state: “very few would ever sign a blank form, maybe 1%...... BDM’s told us that.” The question is to evoke a wrong answer.