How ASIC preferred consumer group views on tighter IDR time-frames

ASIC IDR

31 July 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has admitted it preferred the views of consumer groups over the concerns of financial services companies when it reduced internal dispute resolution (IDR) timeframes to 30 days. 

ASIC’s position is spelled out in the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) attaching to the IDR changes in which it acknowledged that industry submissions had broadly opposed the 30-day timeframe because of the complexity of dealing with some complaints, particularly financial advice complaints. 

However, the regulator said: “We do not accept that all of the complaints in any particular subsector are inherently complex and require additional time to resolve. Firms should ensure that their record-keeping and customer service functions are appropriate for the level of complexity in their business”. 

The ASIC statement said that industry submissions had broadly opposed the 30 calendar day timeframe for non-superannuation complaints. 

“Their arguments against this requirement included that: 

(a) complaints from specific industry subsectors (e.g. financial advice related complaints and responsible lending related complaints) are all inherently complex and require more time; 

 (b) the resolution of individual complaints is often delayed by factors outside of the financial firm’s control, such as delays caused by the complainant, third-party insurers or medical experts; and 

(c) reducing IDR timeframes would simply push more matters on to AFCA. 

“Many industry submissions noted that while they could (and already do) provide an IDR response to the vast majority of complaints within 30 days, the complex cases that require more time are not accurately described or defined as being ‘exceptional’,” ASIC said. 

By comparison, it said all submissions by consumer representative groups supported a reduction in IDR timeframes to 30 calendar days for non-superannuation complaints with one submission proposing a 21-day timeframe for all complaints. 

“Some of these submissions noted the stress that an unresolved complaint can cause, particularly when a complainant needs to make significant financial decisions (e.g. whether to sell an asset or declare bankruptcy). Consumer legal representatives provided examples where their clients had assumed that their complaint had been rejected due to the long wait times.” 

ASIC noted that it had provided exceptions to the 30-day rule where it could be proved particular complaints were complex. 

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...

1 month 3 weeks ago

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

2 months ago

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

2 months ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

2 weeks 2 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

1 week 2 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS