How ASIC preferred consumer group views on tighter IDR time-frames

31 July 2020

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has admitted it preferred the views of consumer groups over the concerns of financial services companies when it reduced internal dispute resolution (IDR) timeframes to 30 days. 

ASIC’s position is spelled out in the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) attaching to the IDR changes in which it acknowledged that industry submissions had broadly opposed the 30-day timeframe because of the complexity of dealing with some complaints, particularly financial advice complaints. 

However, the regulator said: “We do not accept that all of the complaints in any particular subsector are inherently complex and require additional time to resolve. Firms should ensure that their record-keeping and customer service functions are appropriate for the level of complexity in their business”. 

Related News:

The ASIC statement said that industry submissions had broadly opposed the 30 calendar day timeframe for non-superannuation complaints. 

“Their arguments against this requirement included that: 

(a) complaints from specific industry subsectors (e.g. financial advice related complaints and responsible lending related complaints) are all inherently complex and require more time; 

 (b) the resolution of individual complaints is often delayed by factors outside of the financial firm’s control, such as delays caused by the complainant, third-party insurers or medical experts; and 

(c) reducing IDR timeframes would simply push more matters on to AFCA. 

“Many industry submissions noted that while they could (and already do) provide an IDR response to the vast majority of complaints within 30 days, the complex cases that require more time are not accurately described or defined as being ‘exceptional’,” ASIC said. 

By comparison, it said all submissions by consumer representative groups supported a reduction in IDR timeframes to 30 calendar days for non-superannuation complaints with one submission proposing a 21-day timeframe for all complaints. 

“Some of these submissions noted the stress that an unresolved complaint can cause, particularly when a complainant needs to make significant financial decisions (e.g. whether to sell an asset or declare bankruptcy). Consumer legal representatives provided examples where their clients had assumed that their complaint had been rejected due to the long wait times.” 

ASIC noted that it had provided exceptions to the 30-day rule where it could be proved particular complaints were complex. 

Recommended for you




Which consumer groups? Choice? CALC? They are political activists, not consumer groups.

Australia doesn't actually have any real consumer groups any more, since Choice morphed into a political activist group about 10 years ago. That's the whole problem. No-one is standing up for the interests of the majority of consumers. It's why Australian consumers have ended up chronically underinsured, and professional financial advice has become so complex and expensive it is out of reach of most of them. The fake "consumer groups" influencing ASIC, AFCA and FASEA have been hellbent on imposing their extremist philosophies on society, and have ended up making things much worse for real consumers.

These so called " consumer" groups originally formed a biased cohort of individuals within FASEA based on their backgrounds and previous roles.
Their ideological influences permeated FASEA and in combination with ASIC's influence and constant conversations and input with FASEA resulted in an unworkable Code of Ethics.
ASIC have been as thick as thieves with Choice for years.
It seems that ASIC are more interested in playing the role of the ACCC by allowing these consumer groups to influence outcomes.

Absolutely agree that the silent majority is paying for the whims and unrealistic expectations of splinter groups.
Queensland business and employees out of work a very good example of politics versus community interest overall.

Add new comment