Treating Vulnerable Consumers ‘Fairly’ When They Make a Complaint About Banking or Finance in Australia

Tania Sourdin, Mirella Atherton
{"title":"Treating Vulnerable Consumers ‘Fairly’ When They Make a Complaint About Banking or Finance in Australia","authors":"Tania Sourdin, Mirella Atherton","doi":"10.53300/001c.11636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Australian Financial Services Reform Act 2001 (Cth) requires that licenced banking and financial services providers establish internal dispute resolution (‘IDR’) systems complying with requirements promulgated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’). In addition, licence holders are required to be members of an ASIC approved External Dispute Resolution (‘EDR’) scheme so that if a complaint is not resolved following the use of internal mechanisms, an external dispute resolution facility is available for most banking consumers. In late 2018, a new EDR body was established, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (‘AFCA’), to deal with external complaints. The 2018 Royal Commission into the banking and finance sector uncovered significant issues in terms of the banking and financial sector and raised a number of serious concerns that were largely linked to how consumers contracted with banks and other organisations however information about existing complaint handling arrangements was limited. In particular, there was little demographic information about consumers who use IDR and EDR arrangements or what factors may be relevant in terms of the settlement of complaints and disputes. In this regard, currently sections 912A(1)(g), (2) of the Corporations Act direct the form of AFSL holders’ IDR and EDR systems, but they do not impose any obligations on AFSL holders in terms of conduct when providing the systems. In terms of consumers more generally, it is unclear how many consumers could be classified as ‘vulnerable’ and may settle a dispute on less favourable terms because the impact of proceeding may place them in an even more disadvantageous position. It is suggested that better reporting in relation to IDR and EDR activity together with targeted independent advocacy services and training of relevant staff in respect of the Australian Consumer Law could assist consumers and enable more effective reporting of misconduct issues.","PeriodicalId":33279,"journal":{"name":"Bond Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.11636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Australian Financial Services Reform Act 2001 (Cth) requires that licenced banking and financial services providers establish internal dispute resolution (‘IDR’) systems complying with requirements promulgated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’). In addition, licence holders are required to be members of an ASIC approved External Dispute Resolution (‘EDR’) scheme so that if a complaint is not resolved following the use of internal mechanisms, an external dispute resolution facility is available for most banking consumers. In late 2018, a new EDR body was established, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (‘AFCA’), to deal with external complaints. The 2018 Royal Commission into the banking and finance sector uncovered significant issues in terms of the banking and financial sector and raised a number of serious concerns that were largely linked to how consumers contracted with banks and other organisations however information about existing complaint handling arrangements was limited. In particular, there was little demographic information about consumers who use IDR and EDR arrangements or what factors may be relevant in terms of the settlement of complaints and disputes. In this regard, currently sections 912A(1)(g), (2) of the Corporations Act direct the form of AFSL holders’ IDR and EDR systems, but they do not impose any obligations on AFSL holders in terms of conduct when providing the systems. In terms of consumers more generally, it is unclear how many consumers could be classified as ‘vulnerable’ and may settle a dispute on less favourable terms because the impact of proceeding may place them in an even more disadvantageous position. It is suggested that better reporting in relation to IDR and EDR activity together with targeted independent advocacy services and training of relevant staff in respect of the Australian Consumer Law could assist consumers and enable more effective reporting of misconduct issues.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
弱势消费者投诉澳大利亚银行或金融时“公平”对待他们
《2001年澳大利亚金融服务改革法》(Cth)要求持牌银行和金融服务提供商建立符合澳大利亚证券和投资委员会(ASIC)颁布的要求的内部争议解决(IDR)系统。此外,许可证持有人必须是ASIC批准的外部争议解决(“EDR”)计划的成员,以便如果投诉在使用内部机制后无法解决,则大多数银行消费者可以使用外部争议解决设施。2018年底,澳大利亚成立了一个新的电子数据处理机构——澳大利亚金融投诉管理局(AFCA),负责处理外部投诉。2018年皇家委员会对银行和金融业的调查发现了银行和金融业的重大问题,并提出了一些严重的担忧,这些问题主要与消费者与银行和其他组织签订合同的方式有关,但有关现有投诉处理安排的信息有限。特别是,几乎没有关于使用IDR和EDR安排的消费者的人口统计资料,也没有关于在解决投诉和争端方面可能涉及哪些因素的资料。在这方面,目前《公司法》第912A(1)(g),(2)条指导了AFSL持有人的IDR和EDR系统的形式,但它们没有对AFSL持有人在提供系统时的行为施加任何义务。就更普遍的消费者而言,目前尚不清楚有多少消费者可以被归类为“弱势群体”,并可能以不太有利的条件解决争端,因为诉讼的影响可能使他们处于更不利的地位。报告建议,更好地报告IDR和EDR活动,同时提供有针对性的独立宣传服务,并对有关工作人员进行《澳大利亚消费者法》方面的培训,可以帮助消费者,使其能够更有效地报告不当行为问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
‘Often Fails to Give Close Attention to Detail’: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Criminal Justice Offender Populations A Practitioner’s Perspective Concerning the Links between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Criminal Justice System Understanding the Nature of ADHD and the Vulnerability of Those with the Condition Who Fall Foul of the Criminal Justice System Corporate Purpose and the Misleading Shareholder vs Stakeholder Dichotomy Legal Considerations in Machine-Assisted Decision-Making: Planning and Building as a Case Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1