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: FOS (Banking Ombudsman) is hopelessly biased and controlled by Bankers. Consumer losses with Fraud and Forged Mortgages soar!

Posted by on in BANKSTERS
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2770
  • Print

 Consumers are being hammered by Banks with FOS covering up incessant Fraud, Forgery and Maladministration in Lending. FOS used to be the old ABOS and before that ABIO.  Its track record against banks since 1990 has been abysmal.   Consuemrs losing homes due to corrupt complaints system.  No Justice behind these doors.  The investigators are "seconded" from the Bankers........................the culprits of white collar crime on a grand scale.  Time for Royal Commission into Banks and their captured FOS mates.  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Regulation of Electronic Funds Transfer in Australia:  An Integrated Multidisciplinary  Approach

Paul White – 3040859
BGP8001 – DBA Dissertation
BPPB – Doctor of Business Administration
Victoria University
Melbourne  Australia

February 2007

 Page 57

2.7 Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman ('ABIO')

The office of the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman (‘ABIO’) commenced on 18 June 1990 and provides an independent mechanism for the resolution of banker-customer disputes.162 Offering a free service to customers, the ABIO was the first self-regulatory financial
body operating on an industry-wide basis in Australia. It was modelled on a comparable adjudicating body in the United Kingdom. After England, Australia became the second country globally to have such a body.163  Pursuant to clause 11 of the EFT Code, the responsibility for handling complaint investigation and resolution procedures rests, in the first instance, with the financial institution. Should the consumer still remain dissatisfied, external avenues are available. In particular, the independent ABIO is the industry's preferred body to assist in EFT dispute resolution according to the Reserve Bank of Australia's payment system regulation arm, the APSC.164.............


The ABIO scheme was created to provide individual customers of member banks with access to an independent avenue of redress when they had a complaint about one of those banks. It was intended to provide a kind of 'appeal process' and research indicates it has been highly effective in improving the banks' practices in handling customer complaints.166...............


In respect of function, the ABIO stated in its 1995/96 Annual Report171 that dispute resolution can take three (3) forms:

(i) during an informal conciliation conference bringing together both parties on neutral ground where, if both parties reach agreement, the ABIO confirms the settlement in writing;

(ii) by an ABIO recommendation where a case manager cannot settle the dispute at the negotiated settlement stage at (i) above and both the bank and consumer accept the recommendation; and

(iii) a legally binding award made by the ABIO where the bank rejects a recommendation, but the consumer has accepted it...................


page 58

Although intended to be ‘independent’, it is notable that the member banks of the ABIO scheme are its ‘owners’ by virtue of them being shareholders in a company limited by guarantee named the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman Limited. The company’s board consists of senior bankers and its responsibilities include the industry oversight of the scheme and the raising of funds to support it with each bank contributing to the maintenance of the scheme according to the number of its disputes pursued with the ABIO.170


2.8 Code of Banking Practice
Following the apparent early success of the EFT Code in protecting consumers’ rights, consumer bodies sought a general banking code of practice for individual customers. The call was answered with a Code of Banking Practice (‘CBP’) in November 1993. In terms of its origin and development, the process was quite similar to that of the EFT Code being the result of a joint task force comprising Treasury and the Trade Practices Commission (now the ACCC). representatives.


However, consumer advocates argued that the Australian Bankers’ Association ‘hijacked’ the process by releasing its own draft Code of Practice, a variation of the task force draft, which they asserted became the final form of the Code.172  The CBP applies specifically to ‘banking services’ (which includes EFT transactions under the Definitions in s 1.1).   While its reach includes EFT transactions, the CBP does not have the coverage of the EFT Code (for example, it does not apportion or limit liability for disputed EFTtransactions or carry an unqualified requirement that financial institutions make terms and conditions of use available before a ‘banking service’ is first used, nor a time frame for dispute resolution as the EFT Code does). Rather than fully incorporate the contents of the previously established EFT Code into its text, the CBP states that it is to be read subject to the EFT Code in the event of any inconsistency: refer CBP s 1.4.

Section 1.2 of the CBP also states that the CBP is to be read subject to any Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation.   As the CBP could be considered to be the ‘parent’ document, this presumably would extend to the EFT Code which itself makes no such reference. Furthermore, the CBP makes reference to non-statute law under s 20.5 which provides that (in the external dispute resolution process) both ‘the law’ and the CBP shall apply to banking services.


The remaining provisions of the CBP, where they are relevant to EFT, carry almost identical requirements to that of the EFT Code in certain key areas (eg, full and effective written disclosure of contractual information, availability of general information on the bank’s obligations to its customer and that a bank must provide an effective dispute resolution mechanism, including an impartial, external process free of charge).


2.9 Relevant legislation: the ASIC Act and the Trade Practices Act.........


The report concluded that:173 In the financial system, specialised regulation is required to ensure that market participants act with integrity and that consumers are protected. The financial system warrants specialised regulation due to the complexity of financial products,
the adverse consequences of breaching financial promises and the need for lowcost means to resolve disputes......


The federal government accepted this view. In its response to the Wallis report, it stated that there were a number of disadvantages to having a variety of regulatory agencies responsible for consumer protection, including that:174


Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • NABbed Nanna
    NABbed Nanna Sunday, 09 November 2014

    I have got to say that my encounters with FOS have been less than satisfactory. My case continued for nearly 10 months. In that time I never spoke with any case manager. All correspondence was via email and that was limited to FOS's letter in respect of the case and Nab's response to that. Nab's response to FOS was totally inadequate and indicated attachments, which were not there. After complaining to FOS re the non supply of the attachments I was informed that it was commercially sensitive and I was not allowed access to it. Nab avoided sending other documents which indicated special conditions pertaining to the case and guess what FOS let them get away with this as well. I found FOS absolutely useless to say the least. Working for the Nab and all bankers not consumers. These banks and especially Nab will bring this country to its knees. Way to much power and control over consumers, government etc. I personally would like to see all the banksters suffer the way we have had to. FOS could not organise a picnic unless Nab did the paperwork for them and that would be full of fraudulent docs ordering cakes and bickies for the fat cats at FOS. Only thing you could hope for was that the flies and ants drove them crazy. haha

    Reply Cancel
  • Duped
    Duped Tuesday, 11 November 2014


    I can think of worse names to call this hopeless lot. You will not get a unbiased decision going the borrowers way, corrupted and decisions will go in the banks favour no matter how much evidence of fraudulent behaviour. They will simply say take it up with the broker and will not listen to the fact that you have told them you have no idea who has put all this manufactured fraud on laf's. The easy way out is to take the banks side of the story and then tell the borrower to bugger off !!! Surely one would think with so many people with basically all similar stories of how they have been duded, conned and scammed by the banks and or their agent brokers the penny would drop, but that is the creature we are dealing with, a bunch of cretonnes and it starts with the head personnel. Take for example Mr Phillip Field, he's an ex banker and thinks he's still there, then again he is probably getting a divvy out of some kind of commission from the banks.

  • Wayne
    Wayne Wednesday, 12 November 2014

    FOS and the golden handshake with the banks is getting a little tarnished
    the department is unbelievably hopeless for the consumer
    FOS are the ex bankers that you may have dealt with in your bad banking & finance advice
    so how can they help consumers???

  • Wayne
    Wayne Wednesday, 12 November 2014

    FOS Im up to over 5 years dealing with FOS & they are no good for consumers, but they are getting itchy like a dog with fleas
    so like a dog you must keep digging, looking for a lost bone
    and you will uncover the bones you been looking for all these years

  • NABbed Nanna
    NABbed Nanna Wednesday, 12 November 2014

    I have had 3 FOS cases since 2010. All different and all with the same result. NAB you win.!!! Old girl you lose.!!!! The last one was a doozy though. Not one conversation with the case manager. This one involved the selling of our home after we were evicted. As if it is not bad enough having the insult of being evicted through Nab's corrupt maladministration tactics, involving a Broker who appears to be not even legitimate, but to then see your home go for 40% of the SIO valuation instigated by the bank for the provision of funds is just plain stick it up you, you whining old cow. The sale price was only one of the issues in my last FOS case but all issues involved the Sale process and Nab's representatives breaches.
    According to Nab's Short Credit Electronic file prepared by the BDM I quote " SIO Valuations are generally on a conservative basis at levels the bank can achieve realistic sales. The properties are in a sound order and are considered saleable at or above these prices" Now how do you figure that.
    We went to the Supreme court after our first FOS rejection which then lasted over 2 years and on more than 3 occasions and 600km round trips, and then to an Appeal. We lost, Nab won.!!! We had to pay the costs of the Nab's Counsel and Court costs amounting close to $100K. I don't know that the Barrister Adam Seagull could really pat himself on the back for his win, after all I represented my husband and myself. I mean if it wasn't so sad having lost our home it would be laughable. This chubby old blonde from the bush leaving home at 5am to get to Melbourne Supreme court without a clue as what was going to happen only knowing I just had to try and get the court to see the fraudulent tactics Nab had used to manipulate us without us being us being vaguely aware at the time. It was only after we had a Financial Counsellor work through our money problems and his diligence led us to the fact that the original loan/funding process and amount did not stack up. Anyway the long and short of all this is that we lost our home of 42 years.
    I have no confidence or faith in the abilities of FOS employees. It seems blatant that they are controlled and under the thumbs of the Financial Institutions. Sick and pathetic.

    Reply Cancel
  • Wayne
    Wayne Wednesday, 12 November 2014

    there is an old saying for FOS & BANKS to think about
    " AS YOU SEW, SO SHALL YOU REAP " & it's now blooming the corruption you sewed.
    there is no way now you can stop the crop from growing out of your control.
    I really can't wait until FOS & BANKS harvest the crop they have sewn
    it will be very interesting to see what they yield....

  • Wayne
    Wayne Friday, 21 November 2014

    FOS ?? does that mean... Fraudulent Organized Secrets?:)

  • PreySOS
    PreySOS Tuesday, 29 March 2016

    • FOS has been made its best effort to protect banker’s serious misleading by unfairly closing my dispute 3 times by all sorts of excuses either out of jurisdiction or other invalid.
    • Despite FOS currently finally determined it was unsuitable loan in Feb 2016, but FOS has set predator ANZ at large for its misleading and is encouraging ANZ to further predate my asset by recommending to
    o Offer me compensation merely a few hundred dollars discount from over $400k illegal gains,
    o Ignore my direct loss caused by ANZ’s misleading advice to offer me unsuitable loan as the tool to deduct illegally frozen business cash flow trapped in an account by bank's breaching of good industry practice code, it had dramatically changed my previous years financial position at the fast growing proven by Tax Return Assessments into $0 business income, even though I had honestly disclosed such financial position change during the cause of loan application.
    o Reject my demand to submit detailed evidence of any loss claims ($280K and other loss claim)
    o Suggest ANZ to enforce illegal gains and
    o Close the dispute as final determination.

  • PreySOS
    PreySOS Tuesday, 29 March 2016

    Re-Above text, It should be spelled as "during the course of loan application"

  • PreySOS
    PreySOS Tuesday, 29 March 2016

    A certain degree of conflicting interest inheres in defective system:
    1. FOS is funded by members of financial service providers mainly banks.
    2. Staff of FOS with banking degrees are likely seeking future career in financial service providers such as banks.
    Therefore they are actually very reluctantly upset banks to avoid major unfavorable decisions against their contributors banks.
    FOS is in fact only effective for minor issues of financial service providers.
    For Big issues they are extremely inclined to protect their contributors and likely future employers banks.
    In order to design a fair and just system, similarly it should refer to court principles:
    "The court noted that the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal is an integral part of the principles of fundamental justice protected by s.7 of the Canadian Charter23 and reaffirmed the following statement by Le Dain, J. in R. v.Valente:
    Although there is obviously a close relationship between independence and impartiality, they are never the less separate and distinct values and requirements. Impartiality refers to a state of mind or attitude of the tribunal in relation to the issues and the parties in a particular case. The word “impartial”...connotes absence of bias, actual or perceived Both independence and impartiality are fundamental, not only to the capacity to do justice in a particular case but also to individual and public confidence in the administration of justice.Without that confidence the system cannot command the respect and acceptance that are essential to its
    effective operation. It is, therefore, important that a tribunal should be perceived as independent, as well as impartial...24"
    I believe to restore individual and public confidence in the administration of justice, reform of FOS's funding sources and discouragement of Ombuds FOS's staff works for their future employers Banks are essential ground of the fundamental of both independence and impartiality to its effective operation.

    Reply Cancel
  • Denise
    Denise Tuesday, 29 March 2016

    Grate Blog: Problem is, Bankers pay FOS $5000 per investigation, then they second one of their own officers to work at FOS and go through the files. No wonder so many members complain of bias. Has been like this for over a decade.
    We need to lobby for a Federal Consumer Protection Agency where no bankers, former bankers, FOS or ASIC gene-pool or friendlies need apply. It should also incorporate a Serious Fraud Office. [email protected]

Leave your comment

Guest Sunday, 25 October 2020