ARTICLE
7 September 2022

ASICs internal dispute resolution review – what were their findings?

SG
Sophie Grace Pty Ltd
Contributor
Sophie Grace is a leading Australian firm specialising in both compliance and legal services to participants within the financial services and credit industries. We have serviced Australian and international clients across the financial sector for over a decade. From obtaining the required licences to operate your business to the provision of ongoing compliance support, many businesses have benefited from Sophie Grace’s extensive knowledge in the financial and credit space. We take pride in our ability to offer tailored solutions to a broad range of businesses whilst keeping business practicalities and obligations to regulators at the forefront of our minds when delivering services and advice. Our consultancy services can equip you with assistance and clarity in your business endeavours.
What did ASIC find in their review in relation to whether retail superannuation trustees are complying with regulations?
Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

After almost 12 months of the new internal dispute resolution (IDR) regime being in force, ASIC has conducted a review and has released its findings which should be taken on board by all AFSL and ACL holders. Although the review was only in relation to whether retail superannuation trustees are complying with the new obligations, there are take-aways for everyone.

What did ASIC find?

  1. Not all client complaints were recorded.

Under ASIC RG 271 Internal Dispute Resolution (RG 271), licence holders are required to record the details of all complaints received. Licence holders should ensure that they:

  • have a system in place that allows them to record and keep track of the progress of each complaint; and
  • are not adopting a narrow definition of 'complaint' which in turn leads to a low number of client communications being recorded in complaints data.

ASIC's review found that complaints were being recorded at an average rate of 30 for every 10,000 superannuation members. However, a small number of superannuation trustees recorded less than 10 complaints for every 10,000 members.

  1. IDR Response Timeframes were not always adhered to

RG 271 also requires licence holders to provide an IDR response to a complainant specifying the outcome of their complaint within mandated timeframes. For standard complaints, an IDR response is to be provided within 30 calendar days after receiving the complaint (note: different timeframes apply in specific cases). RG271 also allows for IDR responses to be sent outside of this timeframe if certain circumstances exist e.g., in a situation where the resolution of the complaint is particularly complex.

Licence holders should ensure that:

  • they have adequate procedures in place to monitor the progress of each complaint and
  • there is a process in place so that mandated timeframes are adhered to.

As a result of the review, ASIC suggests licence holders review their IDR processes to ensure the circumstances which exist when sending a delayed IDR response are not interpreted too broadly.

In ASIC's review, ASIC found that 2.7% of total IDR responses were sent outside of the specified timeframe for superannuation trustees.

  1. Complainants were not informed of delays

Licence holders must inform complainants that they have the right to pursue their complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) in a situation where the complaint is not resolved within the maximum IDR timeframe. Licence holders should review delay notifications being sent to clients to ensure there is a reference to AFCA and provide details about how the complainant can access AFCA.

ASIC's review found that in nearly 50% of cases, complainants were not notified of their right to escalate the complaint to AFCA.

  1. IDR process failures

Licence holders should continually review and adjust their IDR procedures to enable better complaints management. This is particularly relevant where a failure in IDR procedures is identified.

In ASIC's review, ASIC found that 1 in 3 superannuation trustees informed ASIC of failures or errors in their IDR processes.

What did ASIC review?

The purpose of ASIC's review was to gather and analyse data on the status and timeliness of complaints handling. ASIC reviewed 35 superannuation trustees covering a total of 38 superannuation funds. Between 5 October 2021 and 28 February 2022, a total of 49,029 complaints were received by the superannuation funds. You can access a summary of ASIC's findings here.

Further Reading

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
7 September 2022

ASICs internal dispute resolution review – what were their findings?

Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Contributor
Sophie Grace is a leading Australian firm specialising in both compliance and legal services to participants within the financial services and credit industries. We have serviced Australian and international clients across the financial sector for over a decade. From obtaining the required licences to operate your business to the provision of ongoing compliance support, many businesses have benefited from Sophie Grace’s extensive knowledge in the financial and credit space. We take pride in our ability to offer tailored solutions to a broad range of businesses whilst keeping business practicalities and obligations to regulators at the forefront of our minds when delivering services and advice. Our consultancy services can equip you with assistance and clarity in your business endeavours.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More