About the Independent Assessor

Melissa Dwyer serves as the Independent Assessor (IA) for AFCA, a role appointed by and reporting directly to the AFCA Board. Operating within the framework of the IA’s Terms of Reference, she investigates concerns regarding AFCA’s complaint handling and assesses whether or not we meet our service delivery standards.

Importantly, under the Terms of Reference, the IA is not authorised to review the merits of AFCA’s decisions, including determinations and jurisdictional rulings. Instead, her role is to assess the fairness of AFCA’s processes. The IA offers valuable feedback and recommendations to improve our complaint-handling procedures, but does not engage in AFCA’s day-to-day operations.

IA complaints in 2023-24

The IA received 288 complaints. The top five issues for complainants were:

• inadequate responses to correspondence or calls
• bias
• unreasonable delays in handling a financial firm complaint
• lack of procedural fairness
• failure to address key issues/concerns.

Under clauses 8 and 9 of the IA’s Terms of Reference, the IA cannot consider the merits of a decision or finding. Therefore, complaints solely about decisions or findings, including determinations and jurisdictional decisions, were ruled outside her jurisdiction.

There were eight complaints from financial firms. Four of these complaints could not be considered by the IA at the time they were lodged, because AFCA’s investigations were still in progress or AFCA had not yet had an opportunity to address the complaint. Two complaints were assessed and the remaining two are currently being reviewed.

IA findings report

The IA received 288 complaints and closed 276. She issued 64 assessments, 20 fewer than 2022-23. This was in large part the result of an increase in the complexity and, consequently, the average length of the assessments issued.

Two complaints were withdrawn and four were closed because the complainant did not respond to an information request or other correspondence.

Two hundred and six complaints fell outside the IA’s terms of reference because:

• they were about the merits of a decision (including jurisdictional decisions) or a financial firm’s actions
• AFCA’s investigation of the financial firm and/or service complaint was still in progress
• AFCA had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the complaint
• they were raised outside the time limits
• they were not related to a financial firm complaint and/or service complaint. 

Proportion of complaints closed following an assessment or an ‘outside terms-of-reference’ ruling

Assessment

Financial year	Percentage
2020-21	32% (61)
2021-22	31% (59)
2022-23	30% (84)
2023-24	23% (64)

Closed as outside terms of reference/withdrawn/failure to respond

Financial year	Percentage
2020-21	68% (131)
2021-22	69% (135)
2022-23	70% (196)
2023-24	77% (212)

Of complaints the IA substantiated, the top three issues were:

• Communication – inadequate responses to correspondence or calls.
• Delays – unreasonable delays in progressing a financial firm complaint.
• Process – failure to follow internal process and procedures.

Recommendations

When a complaint is substantiated, the IA can recommend to AFCA’s Chief Ombudsman that AFCA:

• offer an apology
• pay compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused (non-financial loss)
• take other action.

During the 2023-24 financial year, the IA recommended 34 apologies to complainants for service failings and $11,100 in non-financial loss compensation. On six occasions, the IA recommended an increase in non-financial loss compensation for failings AFCA previously apologised for.

The IA also recommended AFCA take eight ‘other actions’, which included:

• providing a further explanation regarding a statement in the determination
• correcting an incorrect reference to the complainant in notes on the case file in accordance with AFCA’s internal file notes procedure
• a decision-maker responding to the complainant’s post-determination submissions
• offering to call the complainants to discuss the determination and/or AFCA’s service complaint response.

AFCA fully accepted and actioned all of the recommendations.

Observations

The IA noted the following themes in 2023-24:

Communication

Communication failings were the biggest category of complaints substantiated. These complaints generally concerned inadequate and/or delayed responses to correspondence or calls (especially post determination) and the provision of poor-quality information/advice.

Efficiency and effectiveness

Many complaints about unreasonable delays in progressing and finalising complaints were substantiated in 2023-24, driven by a significant increase in the number of financial firm complaints AFCA received over the last two years. The IA is continuing to closely monitor delays and AFCA’s communication and management of them.

The related increase in number and complexity of complaints to the IA Office also resulted in some delays in assessing complaints. The Board approved additional resourcing for the IA Office in response to these increases.

Accessibility

The IA only substantiated one complaint for the year about a failure to provide adequate assistance to a complainant. In Q4, the IA received 13 complaints concerning accessibility, the highest quarterly number of complaints in this category to date. The issues most complained about were inadequate responses to requests for special assistance, and discrimination.

Fairness and impartiality

The IA substantiated three ‘lack of procedural fairness’ complaints this year, two of which concerned the exchange of information. In one instance, AFCA failed to advise the complainant it would not be relying upon information he provided prior to issuing an expedited determination. In the other, AFCA failed to exchange the financial firm’s submissions.

Business improvement recommendations

Clause 3 of the IA’s Terms of Reference allows the IA to recommend ways that AFCA can improve business operations.

The IA’s eight business improvement recommendations for 2023-24 included that AFCA:

• adequately document discretionary decisions, such as merging complaints and expediting decisions, on case files and adequately explain the decisions to complainants
• consistently acknowledge receipt of requests for information under the Privacy Act, and provide next steps and likely timeframes
• correct incorrect advice on its website about timeframes to submit complaints
• review template timeframes to respond to information exchanges, to ensure they are reasonable and appropriate in all (or any) circumstances.

Business improvement recommendations, together with AFCA’s responses, are reported to AFCA’s Board. The Board monitors the implementation of the proposed actions. As of June 2024, four of the eight recommendations had been fully addressed. Actions taken included a review of the adequacy of template timeframes to respond to information exchanges, correcting advice about timeframes on AFCA’s external website, updating enterprise-wide privacy training on internal advice and privacy guidelines, and launching (lunch ‘n’ learn) training on procedural fairness.

Reporting

During 2023-24, the IA attended AFCA’s Board meetings and provided quarterly written reports. She also reported quarterly in writing to ASIC and publicly, via AFCA’s website1, on a six-monthly basis.

Previous section - Feedback about our service

Next section - Our board