Has AFCA grown beyond its mandate?

AFCA Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association

31 March 2021
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) would be precluded from hearing complaints from wholesale clients under revised arrangements being canvassed by the Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association (SFAA).

What is more, the SFAA wants the Government to trim back the amount of discretion allowed to AFCA on what complaints it can hear and to impose some obligations on those making the complaints.

In a submission filed with the Treasury’s review of AFCA, the SFAA has made clear that while it supports an external dispute resolution (EDR) scheme such as AFCA, it has serious concerns about the manner in which the AFCA regime has been allowed to evolve.

“We consider that the AFCA scheme has developed in a way that is no longer just a protection measure for small consumer complaints,” the submission said before claiming that:

“AFCA is now a scheme where:

  • Complainants can claim for amounts up to $1,085,000;
  • Member firms can have a binding award of over $500,000 made against them;
  • Decisions are based on discretion and members have no practical recourse to appeal;
  • Complainants can bring claims even though they are wholesale investors;
  • If complainants are unhappy with the decision they can bring proceedings in a court of law after having had a ‘dry run’ in the AFCA system; and
  • Member firms settle claims rather than proceed to a determination due to the scheme’s cost structure.”

The SFAA submission argued that to address these issues changes be made to the AFCA Complaint Resolution Scheme Rules to:

  • Require complainants to ‘submit’ to the AFCA jurisdiction when they lodge a complaint and agree to be bound by the final decision. Alternatively, the rules could be changed to require complainants pay at least a nominal fee should they not accept AFCA’s preliminary view and progress the matter to a final decision;
  • Reduce the amount of discretion that AFCA can exercise when dealing with complaints;
  • Clarify that AFCA does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints from wholesale clients and include wholesale client complaints as a mandatory exclusion; and
  • Require complainants who have not made a complaint first with a member firm to be referred back to the member firm to lodge a complaint directly with it before being able to lodge a complaint with AFCA.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

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

3 weeks 4 days ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

1 week 3 days ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

5 days 17 hours ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

4 days 21 hours ago