ASIC to appeal Westpac responsible lending decision
The corporate watchdog has appealed with the Full Federal Court of Australia against the decision regarding allegations against Westpac Banking Corporation for contraventions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Credit Act).
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said the court’s decision created uncertainty as to what was required for a lender to comply with its assessment obligation.
ASIC commissioner Sean Hughes said ASIC did not regard the decision as consistent with the legislative intention of the responsible lending regime.
“The Credit Act imposes a number of legal obligations on credit providers, including the need to make reasonable inquiries about a borrower’s financial circumstances, verifying information obtained from borrowers and making an assessment of whether a loan is unsuitable for the borrower,” he said.
Last month, the Federal Court found Westpac had not breached the responsible lending provisions of the Credit Act and decided that a lender “may do what it wants in the assessment process”.
At the time, Hughes said ASIC took on the case because of the need for judicial clarification of a cornerstone legal obligation on lenders and “this is why ASIC refers to this case as a ‘test case’”.
ASIC had alleged that during December 2011 and March 2015, Westpac failed to properly assess whether borrowers could meet their repayment obligations before entering into home loan contracts.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
