Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook

facebook3           facebook2 


What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.


Articles View Hits

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: Australian Finance and Banking System a BIG Joke: Consumers say no trust in FOS

  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2257
  • 1 Comment
  • Print

Consumer says to us:  I said in my submission to Dastyari Inquiry that banks had forgotten about page numbers on faxes and when these Bankers woke up  so many Members and other people who requested one were told by Bad Bankers: "sorry documents have all gone missing..."

 It's a joke...the FOS did not ask ANZ for a copy of my LAF or if they did were not given one.  FOS told Parliament "many bank files are ina  muddle and documents have gone missing.

Yes that's what happens when its a Crime Scene run by Banking Cartel.  Consumer Confident and Trust is shattered for years to come.

FOS CIRCULAR Sept 2013 is a must read re Maladministration in Lending:

 FOS Circular    Issue 15 - Spring 2013


Maladministration and low doc loans


Our Annual Review highlights the increase in disputes we received in 2012-2013 about maladministration in lending - that is, cases where it is said that the financial services provider (FSP) did not exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent lender when assessing an applicant’s loan. In our Annual Report we said:

“The number of disputes we accepted about maladministration in lending more than doubled in 2012-2013. There were 706 disputes lodged which related to this issue compared to 333 in 2011-2012 and 209 in 2010-2011. FOS also saw a 99% increase in the number of disputes about maladministration in loan management (153).

While the reason for the significant increase in maladministration matters cannot be stated definitively, FOS is aware of the increased media coverage about maladministration in lending over the last 12 months. Matters relating to maladministration are complex and require detailed investigation. In each dispute we carefully consider the steps taken by both the FSP and the applicant to ensure both have fulfilled their obligations to the other when applying for and being granted a loan.

These complex investigations have had consequences for FOS workflows and resources. In July 2013 we will embark on a pilot program aimed at identifying matters relating to maladministration earlier so that we can deal with them in the most efficient way and reach a decision earlier.”

Given the increase, it is timely to remind applicants and FSPs of our approach to this type of dispute, particularly in relation to low doc lending. In Circular 5 we said that we would consider disputes about low doc lending entered into before the introduction of the Responsible Lending provisions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. The Responsible Lending provisions commenced for new lending after 1 January 2011 for Banks, Credit Unions and Building Societies and after 1 July 2010 for all other lenders. We also consider disputes about lending that is unregulated by the National Credit Code.

When we consider a dispute about whether a low doc loan should have been approved, we will take into account a range of factors, including:

  • the information provided by the applicant to the FSP
  • whether the FSP properly assessed that information having regard to the standard of a diligent and prudent lender
  • whether the FSP followed its own credit policies, and
  • how the funds were used by the Applicant.

It is our view that a lender’s obligation to lend responsibly is set out in:

  • the common law
  • to the extent the loan is regulated, section 70(2)(l) of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) and, now, section 76(2)(l) of the National Credit Code
  • for subscribing FSPs, clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice (CBP) or clause 6 of the Mutual Banking Code of Practice, and
  • sections 12DA and 12ED of the ASIC Act.

In considering these disputes, our Terms of Reference also provide that we should take into account good industry practice. It is our view that good industry practice includes the obligation to exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent lender when assessing a loan application.

Where it is said that false information is contained on a loan application form, whether made knowingly or inadvertently, we consider that to be relevant information to take into account when considering these types of disputes. We will ask the FSP to provide a copy of the loan application form and information about the circumstances surrounding its decision to provide the loan.

Even though information provided on a loan application form may be incorrect, this does not mean that maladministration has been established. We will take into account who was responsible for providing that information to the FSP, how the FSP assessed the information and whether, if the correct information had been provided, the loan would still have been granted because the applicant could still afford to repay the loan.

Where it is established that the loan should not have been approved if the lender had applied the appropriate level of care and skill, then we have to consider the appropriate remedy. As a general rule, because the applicant has had the use of the loan funds they will be required to repay the principal amount borrowed. If some or all of the loan was used to refinance an existing facility, then the refinanced amount will need to be repaid with interest.

If the loan involved new lending, then the principal will have to be repaid, but the applicant may receive compensation by way of a refund of the interest charged and other costs that may not otherwise have been incurred. We may, however, reduce the amount of compensation where we form the view that the applicant did not take reasonable steps to protect their own interests – for example, by signing a blank or incorrect loan application form or accepting the loan offered by the FSP without giving due and proper consideration to their own financial position.

In Circular 12, we discussed the sort of information an applicant should provide to us when lodging a dispute. We reminded applicants of our general approach to low doc disputes and maladministration in general, and said that if we agree that the loan should not have been granted, it is very unlikely that the loan balance will be written off entirely. For this reason, applicants should continue to make payments on the loan while we are considering the dispute. The FSP does not have to stop applying interest or fees, and if an applicant does not continue paying off the loan, these costs will increase.

For more information about our approach to low doc lending cases, please see the information contained in Circular 5 and Circular 12.


  Thanks Gladys: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • Wayne
    Wayne Monday, 08 December 2014

    FOS, is a total waist of our Money & Time. Ex bankers running a consumer industry.. what a con. Some even handling Bank cases whilst applying for transferring to FOS. Wake up AUSTRALIA you are getting coned... by the whole system. Time to SHAKE THE HELL OUT OF THE CAGE NOW more just rattling it, whilst senators like Cormann & Banks keep getting paid to hear our sad stories to no avail.
    GET OUT OF THE WAY SENATOR IF YOU CANT SEE THE FRAUD. AUSTRALIANS NEED SOMEONE WILLING TO LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIANS. god knows there is enough of you looking after banks. you must be blind if you cant see the evidence that's been RAMED down your throats for 14 years, or is it that there may be SOMETHING ELSE is going on?? haa indeed there was OUR Lucky Country but now has turned in to Sin City

    Reply Cancel

Leave your comment

Guest Friday, 22 January 2021