Judge admonishes AFCA for prompting filing of complaints

AFCA/NSW-Supreme-Court/

14 January 2021
| By Mike |
image
image image
expand image

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has been admonished by a NSW Supreme Court judge over the manner in which it appeared to have stepped beyond its remit by encouraging a complainant to file a complaint against a financial services firm, DH Flinders.

At the same time, the judge also established a significant legal precedent by making clear that firms should not be held responsible for the actions of their corporate authorised representatives if those representatives are acting outside of or beyond their authorisation.

Justice James Stevenson of the NSW Supreme Court held that DH Flinders could not be held responsible for the actions of its corporate authorised representative, Equitable Financial Solutions Limited (EFSOL) with respect to products with which DH Flinders had no connection and no knowledge.

Those products were the EFSO Ameen Investment Program which saw EFSOL placed into liquidation in late 2019 but gave rise to 127 complaints and debts of $21.8 million.

The court had heard that a number of complaints had been raised against EFSOL but that some of those complaints were only directed towards DH Flinders when an AFCA staffer drew the attention of complainants to DH Flinders’ status as has having granted authorised corporate representative status to EFSOL and suggested they join the company in the their complaints.

The court heard that the complainants would not have known of the DH Flinders corporate authorisation in the absence of having been informed of it by an AFCA representative who then suggested “as discussed, you may lodge a complaint against DH Flinders and I can assist you with lodging that complaint”.

Justice Stevenson said that “this was hardly behaving in a manner procedurally fair to DH Flinders nor in a in manner which was impartial”.

His honour suggested that counsel for DH Flinders had “was correct to submit that AFCA had here ‘entered the fray’ and was acting in an advisory relationship with the complainants”.

Justice Stevenson found that AFCA did not have contractual authority, jurisdiction or power to determine the complaints.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

5 months ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

5 months 1 week ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

7 months 1 week ago

The FSCP has issued a written direction to an adviser who charged clients “extraordinary fees” for inappropriate and conflicted advice, as well as encouraged them to swit...

1 week 6 days ago

ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of an advice firm associated with Shield and First Guardian collapses, and permanently banned its responsible manager. ...

3 weeks 2 days ago

ASIC has confirmed the industry funding levy for the 2024–25 financial year, and how much licensees can expect to pay....

3 days 20 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Fund name
3y(%)pa
2
DomaCom DFS Mortgage
95.46 3 y p.a(%)
5