The mandatory and contractual requirements of the Banking Code of Practice states:
35 Internal dispute resolution
35.1 We will have an internal process for handling disputes with you. This process will:
(a) be free of charge;
(b) meet the standards set out in Australian Standard AS4269-1995 or any other industry dispute standard or guideline which ASIC declares to apply to this Code;
(c) adhere to the timeframes specified in this clause 35
CCMC Bulletin No 8 – August 2007
· It is not necessarily inconsistent with Clause 35 of the Code for a bank to engage external lawyers to resolve disputes. If a bank chooses to have its external lawyers manage such a dispute, the following minimum requirements apply in order to comply with Clause 35 of the Code:
· The lawyers must comply with all conditions under Clause 35;
· From the date notified of the complaint no legal costs may be charged to the Customer relating to the resolution of the complaint/ dispute;
· The bank must accept any decisions made by its lawyers regarding the resolution of the dispute and accept any consequences resulting from its lawyers’ actions; and
· The bank or its lawyers must tell the Customer or the Customer’s agent that the lawyers will be handling the dispute resolution and that they are obliged to comply with Clause 35 of the Code.
AFCA Fact: AFCA IGNORES ITS OWN INTERNAL ADVICE
An AFCA Internal Serviceability Report stated the following:
“…However, in my view, the bank failed to display the care and skill of a prudent and diligent banker by not linking the profits of S Pty Ltd by taking a guarantee from S Pty Ltd to secure the loan to the company…”
And
“…it is my view, a prudent and diligent lender would have directly link the revenue stream to the borrowing by interlocking guarantees…”
And
“…it was poor banking practice to allow the interest only obligation to continue without a review once on notice of the sale of the business in 2009…”
And
“…the bank could have exercised greater skill and care by linking the cash flow source for debt servicing directly to the loan…”
What was going on?
The bank, the Bank of Queensland (BOQ), covertly used another company’s financials to justify serviceability of a ‘Business Term Loan’. The company did not bank with BOQ, had no relationship and made no undertaking to BOQ. Had BOQ not done this they could not have justified serviceability of the Loan. This also meant that directors unknowingly were making decisions that was having a critical material impact on serviceability.
What did AFCA do?
The ‘Preliminary Assessment’ and the consequent ‘Panel Determination’ totally ignored their own expert findings. None of the above was mention or referred to in the ‘Preliminary Assessment’ or ‘Final Determination’. It would seem BOQ can do no wrong.
What does BOQ say?
“…we support AFCA as an independent and fair external dispute resolution body for our industry…”
Conclusion:
This is one of many examples of extreme bias by AFCA in favour of BOQ in this case. Like its predecessor FOS, AFCA is not an independent and fair external dispute resolution body, they are ‘Gatekeepers’.
Note: The borrower never missed payment and were ready willing and able to continue to do so.
Matt Comyn, CEO of the CBA at their recent AGM confirmed:
“We also do create deposits in the system, we expand money supply when we lend money”
Banks have a magic money tree!
Please consider the following scenario.
Fred Nerk purchased a house from Joe Blogs.
Both banked with BOQ.
BOQ extended a mortgage secured by the house and Fred Nerk’s personal guarantee.
BOQ created a deposit & in doing so expanded money supply, in order to facilitate the loan to Fred Nerk.
Seterus Paribas, that is ‘all other things being equal’, my question is:
How does BOQ and by extension other banks justify increasing the interest rate on Fred Nerk’s and other mortgagor loans in line with the cash rate, when the cost of funds was zero?
Is it Profit Gouging, perhaps subsidising other products where the magic money tree can’t be used, or both?
The general public are constantly reminded by the monopoly issuer of our currency the Federal Government, that it has a Trillion-dollar debt.
This pseudo debt represents approximately 36% of GDP.
What the general public is not made aware of is the private debt, that is approximately 190% of GDP.
This would represent a five Trillion-dollar real debt.
We hear very little if anything in main stream media or from the chattering class regarding private debt.
Apart from a debt jubilee or the issuance of more debt to pay debt, which would be a Ponzi scheme.
Can BOQ explain how its share of the five Trillion in private debt could be reduced or retired?
The ABC reported, “Power prices to surge up to 18.3 per cent as energy market turmoil flows through to households”, which is equivalent to $250/year for the average residential electricity bill.
For this the parliament was recalled today.
In a vain attempt to control ‘Cost Push’ inflation, the Federal Governments Bank, the not independent RBA, increases the cash rate by 3% which is equivalent to $15,000/year or $300/per week for the average $500,000 residential mortgage or business loan.
This is 6000% worse than the household energy crisis but there was no recall of parliament to address this.
The RBA was established by the Reserve Bank Act 1959; therefore any independence or autonomy is, and always has been, at the pleasure of the Federal Government. It has the power to reverse the recent interest rate increases.
For contrast:
Japan’s cash rate is -0.1% but its inflation is only 3% and its total fiscal spending is 266% of GDP
Australia’s cash rate is 3.1% with an inflation rate in excess of 7%, total fiscal spending is a mere 36% of GDP
This inept and pointless interest rate austerity transfers real assets from real workers that Labor claims to represent, to the already wealthy.
I was in parliament for the last week of sitting and witnessed the power of the Australian Bankers Association. Based on the 24-hour backflip on million-dollar fines for bankers, it would seem the Federal Government will bend the knee instantly to instructions from the ABA.
For balance the LNP established a Clayton’s Banking Royal Commission when instructed by the big four.
I ask that ANZ in conjunction with the other big four, request that Anna Bligh on behalf of all mortgage holders, to instruct the Federal Treasurer to stop and reverse, the ‘NOT’ independent RBA’s, inept interest rate austerity and be more like Japan.