IDR trumps EDR for licensees

Data provided by two of Australia’s largest financial advice providers – AMP and IOOF – has revealed the degree to which Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) represents the best option for licensees.

The data, provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics found that in the case of IOOF, it achieved a far more balanced outcome in terms of dealing with customer complaints with IDR resulting in the business resolving 94 of 172 complaints being resolved in its favour with 75 being resolved in favour of the client.

This compares to a much poorer outcome for the company in external dispute resolution (EDR) matters handled by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority with just a third being resolved in favour of the business, and 15 in favour of the client albeit that four were withdrawn.

Related News:

In the case of IOOF, the majority of complaints which went to EDR (36%) were around quality of advice, with 32% relating to service delivery.

For AMP, it appeared the Royal Commission had a major impact on the number of financial advice remediation complaints handled by its IDR team with almost a tripling from 42 in 2018 to 120 in in 2019 and 81 to date in 2020.

However, in terms of EDR, AMP said that its EDR team had handled nine complaints in 2018, 15 in 2019 and five so far this year.

It said themes of the complaints included appropriateness of the advice, fees for service and the remediation.

The AMP data related to cases where AMP had made an offer to clients and the clients were not happy with that offer.




Recommended for you

Comments

Comments

everyone adviser should know, EDR/AFCA is rigged against them. The figures dont seem that awful, but it because the winning ones for the adviser were just ridiculous complaints, nothing at all contentious.
AFCAs idea of procedural fairness is lame joke.

This would appear to be stating the bleeding obvious when you have an EDR/AFCA , who has no apparent accountability, no right of appeal against their determinations and who appear to be willing to play robin hood as a sort of general “reimbursement" mechanism for many people who don't accept responsibilities for the own actions. All this at no cost for the person lodging the complaint and costs incurred by the adviser whether found for or against ! Of course this type of EDR setup is likely to attract more than it's fair share of those willing to give it a go ! What is there to lose?

Add new comment