AFA questions FOS operating procedures

AFA/financial-planning/ASIC/government-and-regulation/financial-advice-industry/financial-advisers/financial-ombudsman-service/association-of-financial-advisers/

16 October 2013
| By Jason |
image
image image
expand image

The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has called into question some of the basic operating procedures of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), stating the service's operations have reduced the level of confidence in the external dispute resolution (EDR) system.

In a submission to the independent review of FOS, the AFA stated that FOS's operating procedures were related to Australian Securities and Investments Commission Regulatory Guide 139 (RG139) which provides oversight of EDRs.

The AFA highlighted a number of areas stemming from RG139 and noted inconsistencies that applied for complainants compared with financial service providers (FSP).

In particular the AFA highlighted that complaints could be made at no-cost to consumers but FSPs had to pay for complaints, even in the event they won the case, and that outcomes of cases were binding on FSPs but not on complainants.

The association also stated that FOS is expected to provide assistance to complainants to draft their complaints — a service not offered to FSPs — while the latter had no avenue of appeal, even in the event where there was a clear error made in the judgement of a case.

The AFA also questioned the level of claims which could be settled by FOS, claiming the increased limit of $280,000 was well beyond the compensation powers of magistrates who were typically limited to award payments of $100,000.

This limit was an important factor given that FOS was not bound by any legal rule of evidence, with the AFA stating it had "taken FOS cases into a space where the industry now questions the level of equity and procedural fairness".

The AFA also stated that under RG139 FOS determinations did not have to be based only on the relevant legal principles but also concepts of fairness and relevant industry best practices, with these structural issues resulting in the level of concern seen by AFA members and within the financial advice industry.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

2 months 3 weeks ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

3 months 3 weeks ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

3 months 4 weeks ago

Advice firms are increasing their base salaries by as much as $50k to attract talent, particularly seeking advisers with a portable book of clients, but equity offerings ...

2 weeks ago

Ahead of the 1 January 2026 education deadline for advisers, ASIC has issued its ‘final warning’ to the industry, reporting that more than 2,300 relevant providers could ...

3 days 20 hours ago

The Financial Advice Association Australia has implored advisers to reevaluate their exposure to AML/CTF obligations ahead of new reforms that will expand their complianc...

3 weeks 3 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
moneymanagement logo