ASIC foreshadows ‘novel’ instances from legacy complaints

As financial planning firms brace for the possibility of having to deal with client complaints dating back to 2008, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has acknowledged the likelihood of “novel” issues arising which may require further regulatory tweaks.

However, while it was ASIC which gave regulatory effect to the new legacy complaints regime imposed by the Government in the wake of the Royal Commission, the regulator made clear that it was not directly responsible for either the process or the outcome.

While handing the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) the rules under which the scheme will operate, ASIC made clear it “has no role in individual complaints handling (under the AFCA Scheme) and will not intervene in the decision-making processes of AFCA”.

Related News:

At the same time, serious questions were asked about whether financial planning licensees would be able to rely on their professional indemnity insurance coverage in circumstances where a succession of legislative changes were imposed over the 10-year legacy period, including the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) changes.

What was already known about the legacy complaints regime and what had been confirmed by AFCA chief ombudsman and chief executive, David Locke, was that the authority had “identified thousands of complaints that could potentially be made to AFCA, based on those that were lodged but deemed outside the jurisdiction of previous schemes”.

And it appeared to be this reality which prompted ASIC to forewarn of the possibility of “novel” issues arising.

“The new jurisdiction, which covers complaints about conduct going back to 2008, may raise novel issues about how AFCA deals with complaints,” the ASIC statement said. “If these issues require or necessitate material changes to the scheme, then ASIC will need to review these as part of our ongoing oversight role.”

The AFCA chief executive made clear that while the legacy complaints would need to be lodged with AFCA in the first instance, they would then be referred to individual licensees for the possibility of resolution via internal dispute resolution processes.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

So ASIC puts the rules into place, but isnt responsible for anything after that? Except of course press releases saying stuff like the above? What a job they must have at ASIC, a never ending fairytale of long lunches and stupid press releases, then of course pinning the little operators so that they can look busy whilst at the same time only hunting those that wont effect their funding levy. If this funding levy isnt the most confilcted renumeration and fee for no service rort ever I dont know what is. Hey ASIC I pay $1000 to you each year, wheres my FDS and Opt in Im not happy with the service!

My latest experience is they are licking their chops about having this new jurisdictional power. They take this liberty and use it to find things the clients isn’t even complaining about, thinking they are on some moral crusade for all clients everywhere, not realising they are crucifying small family own advice businesses.

This whole idea of backdating to 2008 was an idiotic idea of Frydenberg to gain votes pre-election. In no other professional occupation do they aim to go back over 11 years ago to try to dig up some issue, especially when the requirement is to keep records for 7 years by PI insurers. Ludicrous scramble by a twat to 'appear' to be doing something proactive. Hopefully the new cabinet ministers who appear to have a clue better than Josh the twat and Disaster O'Dwyer will be able to make this right.

Add new comment