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 overloaded with complaints of fraud and Maladmin by Major Banks

  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 4181
  • Print

FOS 'lacks timeliness': Independent review Calida Smylie | 13 Mar 2014
An independent review of the Financial Ombudsman Service has found the external dispute regulator’s organisational model inefficient and needs a make-over.

The reviewer, consultant Cameronralph Navigator, assessed FOS against ASIC’s benchmarks for external dispute resolution (EDR) schemes – accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness.

It found FOS, an ASIC-approved EDR scheme, did not meet its benchmark for efficiency and caused undue delays when dealing with disputes.

Cameronralph Navigator said FOS needed to take immediate steps to clear its backlog and refresh its organisational approach.

It recommended FOS be more proactive and change its approach to dealing with disputes involving financial difficulty by taking a more "assertive approach".

"The primary issue identified by our analysis is the configuration of FOS into a series of 'production line' steps, each focusing on a particular dispute resolution technique,” the review said.

“This is designed to progressively filter out the less complex disputes and to resolve as many disputes as possible by co-operative means, reserving the effort of the most experienced and senior staff for the most complex and most contested disputes at the end of production line.

"The downside of this configuration is multiple hand-offs between FOS staff, queuing of disputes between internal stages, delays in achieving a FOS view on the merits of disputes and some frustration for the parties."

FOS board chair Professor Michael Lavarch said the board had accepted “most” of the recommendations made by the reviewers, in what was the first independent review of the regulator since the merger five years ago.

“The FOS Board shares the concerns expressed about the current dispute backlogs and the need to further streamline FOS’s dispute handling processes.”

“The steps taken through FOS’s business plan are already making an impact on the dispute backlog but we accept more needs to be done.”

“Work is underway to significantly reduce the dispute backlog by the end of this year with contract staff being engaged, and other measures put in place to speed-up the dispute handling process without compromising the quality of FOS’s decision making,” Lavarch said.

ASIC welcomed the review, saying it will liaise with FOS about implementing the review's recommendations.

“ASIC agrees with the review's findings that while there are improvements that can be made, FOS delivers a critical service and this review highlights the need to continue to refine and improve that service,” a statement from the corporate watchdog said.
ED: ASIC told Parliament "no systemic issues"  Lying to Parliament is criminal offence. Someone needs to be going to Jail....preferably an overpaid regulator.  Medcraft perhaps?  FOS raking in $34 million a year and still on overload!
Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • Denise
    Denise Saturday, 15 March 2014

    ASIC told Parliament "no systemic issues" Lying to Parliament is criminal offence. Someone needs to be going to Jail....preferably an overpaid regulator. Medcraft perhaps? FOS raking in $34 million a year and still on overload! [email protected]

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 15 March 2014

    Overhaul is needed, but not enough now

    It recommended FOS be more proactive and change its approach to dealing with disputes involving financial difficulty by taking a more "assertive approach".
    This is inappropriate for in impartial EDR. Certainly the time frame needs attention, as does the staff retention, consistency in quality of care at work and supervision of cases with non-expert staff.
    If FOS is an example of corporatised legal services, the moral hazards in the system outweigh the advantages. FOS staff still remind clients to keep paying their debt obligations during a dispute, despite their knowledge of the inherent legal falsities and risk of FOS being implicated in deceptive and misleading conduct!
    Despite all the pro-corporatisation ranting over the years, there is little or no evidence to show that it does keep costs down through natural market forces or that efficiency is actually improved, especially if "customer service" degenerates into "sales consulting" (for profit) and consumer complaints rise.
    We would welcome the return of a more impartial system of government funded/means tested user pays Tribunals for dispute resolution. The EDRs funding bases make them sitting ducks for allegations of bias and legal malpractice, resulting in a loss of consumer confidence, a two-speed legal system and widespread dissatisfaction.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 15 March 2014

    "It recommended FOS be more proactive and change its approach to dealing with disputes involving financial difficulty by taking a more "assertive approach".
    I also agree this is inappropriate. Assertive approach?? I bet I know who will get to cop that.. and it won't be the banks.

    Our matters are highly complex and highly important and we are traumatised. How can one person be allowed to at the flick of a pen allow the bank to steal our home when it was the banks maladministration that got us all in this mess in the first place?

    We are being financially crippled by banks fraudulent actions against us, and have nowhere else to go ... We cannot afford lawyers to fight for us....

    We need a Consumer protection agency with real "teeth"..... real investigative powers to have these bank executives brought to trial and face criminal charges.
    We want our money back. We want our lives back.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 15 March 2014

    Bank Lobbying

    There is only one side benefits from slow process concentrating solely on speeding up the process e.g abolishing review panels etc it is the Banks ( they want to continue with their foreclosure process ) surely the first move should be to make FOS capable of rendering unbiased decisions not one of their so-called ombudsmen has no consumer background - (all ex in-house banking lawyers ) the EDR system is slow and needs speeding up , but it is also bent and increasing transparency and impartiality should be the first task

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 16 March 2014

    Wow!!! What a revelation. Anyone who has had dealings with ASIC and FOS they are too well aware of all the corruption, ineptitude and lies. Medcraft should go to jail for lying to Parliament. He couldn't possibly lie straight in bed. But OH !!!!! he's already in BED with his Bankster mates and they all stick together to FOOL all the rest of Australia. Who is going to enforce the Laws of our Commonwealth. If not we shall end up with anarchy and revolt....she'll be right is wearing very thin for all the victims of Medcraft and his Cronies. They eat the cake and we are lucky to get a crumb.

    Come on Senators; get the Australian Federal Police to act for all the Banks Victims.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 16 March 2014

    FOS breached their license conditions

    FOS could be liable for breach of contract if the opinion of the Victorian Court of Appeal in FOS v Myscoski is followed i.e. that FOS have a contract with all who seek the services and part of that contract is to be efficient

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 17 March 2014


    Does anyone have a clue why once a dispute has been filed against a lender and the borrower should by chance be awarded a win in that case then why do we need to pay the interest, fees, charges and such like that may have accumulated whilst the case is being decided. If a lender has as accused by the borrower not followed lending guidelines, maladministered the loan or committed outright fraud to gain benefit is it fair that the borrower be disadvantaged at the decision end of the process. I can certainly see if the borrower has no real case and refuses to continue with loan repayments at the beginning of a dispute then that is the risk you take and you must pay the price for not being able to produce the evidence to win your case. All the BFCSA members have the evidence and if truth is truth should win their cases but even if you do win you still have to repay the accumulated costs. Where exactly does that leave victims you can win but still end up worse off because the banks can apply penalty interest, fees, charges and every other crooked default against the borrower and we still come out losers with bankers making ridiculous profit from their crookedness. Why is there not a law in the dispute resolution process to freeze all obligations until the case has been heard in full and a decision made either way. I find it hard to swallow that a bank even though found guilty of a crime against their own code can consider it fair to expect the borrower to still have to continue paying for a loan deemed unlawful, backed by regulators that appear to think it ok to continue gaining from a crime. Wasn't it a big issue just recently with a lady released from a Bali prison there was a major outcry because of her doing an interview and taking a gain for it. What a bloody double standard at least Schapelle Corby (I am not a fan lets get that straight) has done her time and it would be no walk in the park doing Bali time. Whereas the bastard bankers that blatantly stole from us as victims have done no time (but will) and are still allowed in this country, the place that wanted these laws introduced, to perpetrate crime on borrowers and continue to reap the proceeds of their crime. If all bets are off while a case is being decided it would help to relieve the stress levels for borrowers and allow them to concentrate on the task at hand of building their case, the banks would still get their money if they win but if they lose their case they get nothing because it is ill gotten gain. Their must be some formal loss to the Lenders such as dissolved loans all costs paid for by the lender and the return of the affected to the previous position before meeting their Lender, otherwise the lesson of Fraudulent Lending will never be learned. Look at the current situation the borrower loses and they are on the street BIG PRICE TO PAY the Lender loses no big deal just a lesson well learnt. Lenders need to have it well and truly clear in their minds produce below acceptable levels of lending and it will be dealt with to the ABSOLUTE LETTER OF THE LAW. Great incentive to play the game fairly.

    ED: Become a Member and receive our email communiques as some of the answers are regularly provided to members. [email protected]

Leave your comment

Guest Tuesday, 24 November 2020