Financial Ombudsman Service finds more credit listings errors
Incorrect credit infringement listings have again been identified as a systemic issue among a small number of financial services providers (FSPs) by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
After identifying two FSPs that were required to take remedial action over the issue in the first quarter of this year, FOS has outlined cases of two more FSPs making errors in credit default and credit infringement listings in the latest edition of its 'The Circular' publication.
FOS was concerned the listings of one FSP may be breaching the Privacy Act, and that clients were being listed without being given the opportunity to remedy defaults.
The FSP concluded a number of the listings were made in error, and so was asked to review all serious credit infringement and default listings for the past five years to determine whether any other listings had been made in error for amounts less than 60 days overdue.
In the other case, the FOS found the FSP was not only possibly making default and serious credit infringement listings incorrectly, but the FSP's standard default notices were not compliant with the relevant legislation.
The FSP was asked to review its listings to establish whether any other defaults had been listed before the amount owing was 60 days overdue, or if any other serious credit infringements had been listed where a reasonable person would not think the debtor did not intend to comply with their credit obligations.
The FSP acknowledged it had made a number of listings in error and amended its internal procedures, and did not find further cases other than those already identified by the FOS.
The FOS said it determined that the matter represented a definite systemic issue and advised the FSP of the requirements of the National Credit Code, and asked the FSP to make further amendments.
The FSP was also asked to undertake to consider requests for compensation from any affected customer whose serious credit infringement listing had been made in error, the FOS stated.
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
