My Story concerns FOS and its limitations.
They can only assist in a very narrow sense, only arbitrating a position between both parties. 
They only adjudicate additional lending between lender and borrower. 
There is no subpoena of documents, instruction of bank , enforcement of criminal proceedings. 
Borrowers are entrapped into a legally binding Determination which prevents any other actions.
My low doc loan of 2007 with Perpetual/ Macquarie was transferred to St George without my knowledge by a broker who added $26,000 to the loan. He received $6,000 (which I am repaying) and was later charged and discredited by ASIC.
I have been involved with FOS for several years as my Loan Application Form was substantially falsified, unknown to me, and the loan repayments were untenable from the beginning. The Bank NEVER CHECKED WITH ME not even a phone call.
I have persevered with FOS, although they tried to dismiss my claim. I have written many letters, met all their demands, supplied extensive paperwork and filled in many forms only to meet with disappointment. Now I am at the DETERMINATION point.
There is NO APPEAL to the Determination and if accepted is BINDING on both parties.
  • FOS rang me and admitted that there was 'maladministration' as St George should not have accepted the loan.
  • FOS used the term 'imprudent lending' in relation to St George's actions.
  • None of the above was in writing.
  • Also, FOS stated that compensation would be minimal as they only deal with the difference between the two loans.
FOS suggested that I not go to Determination but accept St George's offer of:-
capitalising my arrears into my repayments after a period of on time repayments.
FOS has ignored :- 
  • The fact that the Broker was charged and discredited by ASIC.
  • St George's shortcomings ie. Maladministration and imprudent lending.
  • A letter from a BFCSA Barrister representing me and covering well all the points of law relating to my dispute with St George.                                     
SO.... St George profits from its maladministration and lack of prudence in lending while I make repayments to St George forever.
The Bank should not have accepted the earlier loan and added to it in the first place.
FOS considers that the Bank offer is a 'good offer'. I am seventy-four years old and the Bank's loan should be extinguished.
However, I can still hope for compensation from:-    
                          1. The Senate Inquiry into ASIC.
                           2. The Federal Treasure's inquiry into Finance and Banking.
                           3. Denise's Royal Commission into the above.