Annual Review 2022–23
Contents
- About this Annual Review
- Year at a glance
- Acknowledgement of country
- Board Chair message
- Chief Executive Officer and Chief Ombudsman message
- Organisational overview
- AFCA Independent Review
- Complaints
- Who complained to AFCA?
- 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 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
- Complaints lodged by consumer advocates and financial counsellors
- Complaints lodged by paid representatives
- Complaints outside AFCA’s Rules
- AFCA’s Systemic Issues function
- AFCA’s Code compliance and monitoring functiong
- Engagement, awareness and accessibility
- Corporate information
- AFCA General Purpose Financial Report
- Glossary
Between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023
Complaints received
Complaints resolved at Registration and Referral stage
Top five complaints received by product
|
Product |
2018–19 ¹ |
2019–20 |
2020–21 |
2021–22 |
2022–23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Personal transaction accounts |
60 |
130 |
164 |
187 |
440 |
|
Personal loans |
197 |
285 |
231 |
292 |
339 |
|
Credit cards |
140 |
257 |
215 |
201 |
281 |
|
Motor-vehicle insurance – comprehensive |
60 |
90 |
94 |
165 |
216 |
|
Home building insurance |
26 |
57 |
56 |
133 |
203 |
Top five complaints received by issue
|
Issue |
2018–19 ¹ |
2019–20 |
2020–21 |
2021–22 |
2022-23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unauthorised transactions |
67 |
151 |
125 |
179 |
332 |
|
Delay in claim handling |
74 |
126 |
107 |
195 |
254 |
|
Service quality |
55 |
122 |
144 |
213 |
206 |
|
Financial firm failure to respond to request for assistance |
58 |
97 |
96 |
102 |
175 |
|
Claim amount |
38 |
93 |
55 |
104 |
166 |
Complaints closed
Stage at which complaints closed
|
Stage |
2018–19 ¹ |
2019–20 |
2020–21 |
2021–22 |
2022–23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
At Registration |
439 |
942 |
921 |
986 |
1,218 |
|
At Case Management |
177 |
542 |
418 |
477 |
615 |
|
At Rules Review |
108 |
197 |
144 |
179 |
165 |
|
Preliminary Assessment |
27 |
115 |
95 |
89 |
98 |
|
Decision |
11 |
87 |
140 |
229 |
119 |
Time taken to close complaints
|
Time |
2018–19 ¹ |
2019–20 |
2020–21 |
2021–22 |
2022–23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Closed in 0–30 days |
319 |
511 |
484 |
595 |
611 |
|
Closed in 31–60 days |
325 |
687 |
533 |
592 |
758 |
|
Closed in 61–180 days |
117 |
552 |
537 |
546 |
677 |
|
Closed in 181–365 days |
1 |
111 |
103 |
158 |
134 |
|
Closed in in more than 365 days |
0 |
22 |
61 |
69 |
35 |
¹ AFCA commenced on 1 November 2018. The 2018–19 financial year covers an 8-month period (from 1 Nov 2018 to 30 Jun 2019). Year-on-year changes between 2018–19 and 2019–20 have been calculated pro rate using monthly averages.
In 2022–23, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples submitted 2,523 complaints to AFCA, a 13% increase on the previous year.
Of these, 23 complaints were against four Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund (ACBF) companies, also known as the Youpla group (see more about Youpla in the following section). This compares to 364 complaints from First Nations peoples against the Youpla group in 2021–22.
In the absence of complaints against the Youpla group, the overall number of complaints lodged by First Nations peoples increased by 34% in 2022–23. This aligns with the overall increase in complaints AFCA received in 2022–23, and suggests general awareness of AFCA among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their advocates has grown in the past 12 months. For more information on AFCA’s outreach and engagement work, and the AFCA Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan.
Around one in 10 (11%) of complaints submitted by First Nations peoples related to financial difficulty.
Most complaints received were about personal transaction accounts (440 or 17%) followed by personal loans (339 or 13%) and credit cards (281 or 11%). The most common issues were unauthorised transactions (332 or 13%), delay in claim handling (254 or 10%) and service quality (206 or 8%). The most common products and issues raised in complaints by First Nations peoples were similar to the most common products and issues raised by all complainants.
In total, 3% of all complaints lodged with AFCA this year were submitted by people who self-identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
While this somewhat reflects the percentage population in Australia,² we know there is still significant work to do to improve financial inclusion for all First Nations peoples and the accessibility of our service, including our cultural competence. We will continue to listen, learn, engage and train our people to identify and remove any barriers to accessing our service at all stages of the complaints process. We have also developed training in cultural and trauma-informed practice for complaint handling staff.
More and more of our First Nations customers, and particularly those living in regional or remote areas, tell us how important it is that AFCA understands and respects cultural protocols like Sorry Business, along with the unique aspects of a complaint such as where the complainant lives in a very remote community.
To ensure our service is not only accessible, but is delivered to First Nations peoples through understanding, respect and cultural confidence, we launched our Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) in December 2022. You can read more about our commitment to Reconciliation and the AFCA Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan.
Funeral insurance and the Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund
As at 30 June 2023, AFCA has received 1,346 complaints against four Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund (ACBF) companies, also known as the Youpla group.
We have also issued 178 decisions against ACBF companies, all of them in favour of the complainants. In these decisions, AFCA found that ACBF misled First Nations peoples. The companies had branded themselves as an Aboriginal business and sold funeral insurance to the community, in circumstances where ACBF was not Aboriginal run, or led, and had no cultural credentials.
In our 178 decisions against these companies, AFCA has ordered ACBF to pay compensation to its customers totalling $1.4 million.
We prioritised these complaints by creating a separate team, trained specifically to understand the relevant cultural protocols, to investigate the issues and communicate respectfully, both with represented and unrepresented people.
All four companies have now gone into liquidation, which means AFCA can no longer work on complaints against them. However, existing complaints remain in our system, and we can continue to receive new complaints, which we have paused awaiting further developments.
Even though we have had to stop work on these complaints, they remain on record.
AFCA continues to work with advocacy organisations to ensure new complaints are lodged. We have developed a streamlined approach for these complaints in a significant step towards ensuring this process is implemented for all First Nations complaints, and tailored and easy to use by remote First Nations peoples.
Case study – Dealing with gambling addiction
Background
The complainant was a young First Nations man who spent 10 years in jail. He received a large compensation payout for the treatment he received while he was incarcerated.
The complainant’s mother (who was his Power of Attorney), approached the bank and asked for options about how she could best protect the compensation payment for the complainant’s benefit when he was released from jail. The bank suggested a term deposit, which the mother ultimately proceeded to open. When the complainant was released from jail, he approached the bank and was able to redeem all the funds by instructing the bank to break the term deposit. The complainant then spent the funds gambling.
Outcome
The AFCA decision maker spent a considerable amount of time working on the complaint and engaging with the parties. While a determination was not issued, the AFCA decision maker considered the bank’s conduct under the vulnerability provisions of the Code of Banking Practice, the bank’s obligation when it gave personal advice (whether the advice was appropriate), its knowledge of the complainant’s gambling addiction and AFCA’s fairness jurisdiction.
The AFCA decision maker noted that when the complainant’s mother first contacted the bank enquiring about how to protect her son’s finances, the bank should have considered referring the complainant for financial counselling and provided a level of guidance to the complainant about possible steps to protect the complainant’s financial position.
After speaking with the parties, the bank agreed to reimburse the complainant in full, plus the maximum amount of non-financial loss compensation. This was a life-changing outcome for the complainant.
