Annual Review 2023-24
Contents
- About this Annual Review
- Year at a glance
- Board Chair message
- Chief Executive Officer and Chief Ombudsman message
- Organisational overview
- Complaints
- Who complained to AFCA in 2023–24?
- AFCA Engagement with First Nations peoples
- Overview of complaints
- Open cases
- Closed cases
- Banking and finance complaints
- Buy now pay later
- Scam complaints
- Financial difficulty complaints
- Small business complaints
- General insurance complaints
- Significant events
- Life insurance complaints
- Superannuation complaints
- Investments and advice complaints
- Cryptocurrency
- Complaints lodged by consumer advocates and financial counsellors
- Complaints outside AFCA’s Rules
- Systemic issues
- AFCA’s Code compliance and monitoring function
- Engagement, awareness and accessibility
- Corporate information
- AFCA General Purpose Financial Report
- Glossary
AFCA’s Rules set out the processes that apply to all complaints submitted to us. We can only handle complaints that fall within our Rules.
Where a complaint is excluded under our Rules
Some consumers and small business complaints fall outside our defined Rules. However, we can proceed if it is appropriate, and we have the financial firm’s consent.
Reasons for complaints outside our jurisdiction
For us to consider a complaint, it must:
- relate to a financial service set out in our Rules
- be about an AFCA financial firm member
- be lodged within our time limits
- not fall within any of our mandatory exclusions.
Key insights
This financial year, 7,804 complaints¹ lodged with us fell outside our jurisdiction. Of these complaints:
21% of complaints were excluded due to ineligibility, meaning we could not accept them. The main reasons were that a financial service was not provided, the complaint involved an uninsured motor vehicle, or it was against a financial firm that was not a current AFCA member.
58% of complaints were excluded under mandatory exclusions, as required by our Rules. Common reasons included disputes over fees, premiums, or charges, assessment of credit risk, and cases already dealt with by a court, tribunal, or another scheme.
24% of complaints were excluded at our discretion, where we deemed it appropriate. The top reasons included complaints that had already been settled, more suitable alternative avenues, and non-compliance by credit representatives.
There was a further rise in discretionary exclusions under Rule C.2.1 this year driven by the introduction of the CSLR, where AFCA exercised its general discretion to exclude complaints not eligible for compensation under the scheme.
Updates to AFCA’s Rules and Operational Guidelines
ASIC approved updates to AFCA’s Rules and Operational Guidelines, which took effect on 1 July 2024. These changes enhance the management of unreasonable conduct, clarify the handling of complaints involving settled issues or appropriate offers, and improve transparency and accessibility in decision-making. The updates align with Treasury’s Independent Review recommendations and ensure that AFCA’s guidelines are accurate and current. See here for more information.
¹ Excludes 1,757 complaints found ineligible for the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) and 812 complaints excluded on merit under OTR A.8.3.
A single complaint may record multiple OTR reasons, and therefore the total does not equal 100%.
Case study – Financial service not provided
Background
The complainant was a victim of a scam when they mistakenly transferred funds to a fraudulent ‘mule’ account instead of their builder. Scammers intercepted and altered a genuine invoice from the builder by accessing the complainant’s email account. The complainant authorised a payment from their bank, Bank A, to the mule account at Bank B, believing they were paying the builder. The funds were subsequently transferred overseas.
Complaint
The complainant lodged a complaint with AFCA against Bank B, claiming that the bank allowed the scammers to set up the fraudulent account. An AFCA Rules Officer reviewed the case and determined that Bank B had not provided a financial service to the complainant, nor was there a direct relationship under Rule B.2.1 that would allow further consideration of the complaint. As a result, the complaint was closed as ‘financial service not provided’.
Outcome
After consulting with the Rules Officer, the complainant decided to file a new complaint against Bank A for failing to prevent the payment. Since Bank A had provided a financial service to the complainant, this new complaint was accepted and progressed for further investigation.
Case study – General discretion to exclude complaints
Background
The complainant’s home was flooded during a recent storm, along with several neighbouring properties. Their insurer paid out the full value of the claim, and the complainant signed a settlement agreement reflecting this payment. Following a discussion with a neighbour who received a higher payout, the complainant filed a complaint with AFCA.
Complaint
The complainant challenged the settlement amount, arguing that it was lower compared to what their neighbour received. They sought a review of their claim and settlement.
Outcome
An AFCA Rules Specialist reviewed the settlement agreement and confirmed that it addressed all aspects of the complainant’s claim adequately. As the settlement was consistent with the agreement and the complaint did not warrant further action, the complaint was excluded under Rule C.2.1, which grants general discretion to exclude complaints.
