Complaints Handling Afca.
Complaints Handling – AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority)
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is Australia’s external dispute resolution (EDR) scheme for financial services. It was established under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and began operating on 1 November 2018, replacing the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), Credit and Investments Ombudsman (CIO), and Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT).
AFCA provides independent, fair, and efficient resolution of complaints between consumers (and small businesses) and financial firms such as banks, insurers, superannuation trustees, financial advisers, and credit providers.
1. Legal Framework Governing AFCA
AFCA operates under:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Part 7.10A
ASIC Regulatory Guide 165 (Internal and External Dispute Resolution)
AFCA Rules
Terms of Reference (binding on members)
Financial firms must be AFCA members to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) or Australian Credit Licence (ACL).
2. AFCA Complaints Handling Process
AFCA follows a structured dispute resolution approach:
(1) Complaint Lodgement
A complainant must first lodge a complaint with the financial firm through Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR).
(2) Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR)
Under ASIC rules:
Firms must acknowledge complaints promptly.
Most complaints must be resolved within 30 days.
Superannuation complaints may allow longer.
If unresolved, the complainant may escalate to AFCA.
(3) AFCA Registration and Referral
AFCA refers the complaint back to the firm for a final opportunity to resolve it.
(4) Case Management and Negotiation
AFCA case managers attempt resolution via negotiation or conciliation.
(5) Determination
If unresolved:
AFCA issues a binding determination.
Determinations are binding on the firm if accepted by the complainant.
3. AFCA’s Jurisdiction
AFCA can consider complaints relating to:
Banking and credit
Insurance
Superannuation
Financial advice
Investments
Responsible lending obligations
Maladministration
Unfair contract terms
However, AFCA cannot:
Act as a regulator.
Impose penalties.
Hear matters already decided by a court.
4. Key Legal Principles in AFCA Complaints Handling
Fairness over strict legality
Good Industry Practice Standard
Responsible Lending Obligations
Procedural Fairness
Compensation Power
Binding Determinations
AFCA decides disputes based on:
Law
Industry codes
Good industry practice
Fairness in all circumstances
5. Important Case Laws Relevant to AFCA Complaints Handling
Although AFCA decisions themselves are generally not judicial precedents, courts have clarified the powers and limits of external dispute resolution bodies like AFCA and its predecessors.
1. Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd
Court: Supreme Court of Victoria
Principle: Judicial review of Ombudsman decisions
The plaintiff challenged a FOS decision (AFCA’s predecessor).
The Court held that:
Ombudsman decisions are subject to judicial review.
However, courts will not interfere unless there is jurisdictional error.
Relevance to AFCA:
AFCA determinations can be reviewed, but courts will not rehear the merits.
2. Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd v Bassman
Court: NSW Court of Appeal
Principle: Contractual nature of EDR schemes
The Court confirmed:
The Ombudsman scheme operates as a contractual arrangement between members and the scheme.
Members are bound by determinations under contract law.
Relevance:
AFCA decisions are binding because financial firms agree contractually to comply.
3. Metlife Insurance Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd
Court: NSW Supreme Court
Principle: Scope of Ombudsman powers
The insurer argued that FOS exceeded its authority.
The Court held:
The Ombudsman must act within its Terms of Reference.
Courts will intervene only if the body acts beyond jurisdiction.
Relevance:
AFCA must act within its statutory and rule-based limits.
4. Wingecarribee Shire Council v Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd (in liq)
Court: NSW Court of Appeal
Principle: Good industry practice and fairness
The Court examined the duties of financial advisers and emphasized:
Disclosure obligations
Suitability of financial advice
Duty of care
Relevance:
AFCA frequently applies similar standards in financial advice complaints.
5. ASIC v Westpac Banking Corporation
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Principle: Responsible lending obligations
The Court analyzed responsible lending obligations under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Relevance to AFCA:
AFCA regularly assesses complaints concerning irresponsible lending using similar legal standards.
6. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Principle: Licensee obligations and systems compliance
The Court held that financial services licensees must:
Maintain adequate systems
Properly supervise representatives
Relevance:
AFCA considers systemic compliance failures when assessing complaints involving financial advisers.
7. CBA v Barker
Court: High Court of Australia
Principle: Implied contractual duties and fairness
While an employment case, the High Court clarified limits on implied duties.
Relevance:
Helps define boundaries of fairness versus contractual obligations—important in AFCA’s “fairness jurisdiction.”
6. Standards Applied by AFCA in Complaint Determinations
AFCA determines complaints based on:
Legal rights
Industry codes (e.g., Banking Code of Practice)
ASIC guidelines
Good industry practice
What is fair in all circumstances
AFCA may award compensation up to monetary limits prescribed in its Rules.
7. Remedies Available Through AFCA
Monetary compensation
Refund of fees or premiums
Loan restructuring
Interest adjustments
Release from debt
Correction of credit listings
AFCA cannot award:
Fines
Punitive damages
Criminal sanctions
8. Judicial Oversight of AFCA
Courts may intervene if:
AFCA exceeds jurisdiction
Denies procedural fairness
Makes a decision affected by legal error
Acts contrary to natural justice
However, courts do not reconsider factual findings unless there is jurisdictional error.
9. Key Features of AFCA Complaints Handling
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Independent | Separate from government and industry |
| Free for consumers | No fee for complainants |
| Binding on firms | If accepted by complainant |
| Informal process | Not a court |
| Fairness-based | Not strictly limited to law |
Conclusion
AFCA’s complaints handling framework is a hybrid model combining:
Statutory authority
Contractual binding force
Fairness-based decision making
Judicial oversight
The courts have consistently upheld that AFCA and its predecessors must act within jurisdiction, follow procedural fairness, and adhere to their governing rules, but their determinations remain binding once accepted.
RELATED Blog
comments