The AFCA Rules set out the processes that apply to all complaints submitted to AFCA. We can only handle complaints that fall within our Rules.

Where a complaint is excluded under AFCA Rules

Some consumers and small business complaints fall outside our defined Rules. However, we can proceed if we think it is appropriate to do so and have the financial firm’s consent. If not, we offer guidance on how and where it can be resolved.

Reasons for complaints outside AFCA’s jurisdiction

For AFCA 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 AFCA’s time limits
• not fall within any of our mandatory exclusions.

This financial year, 6,080 complaints lodged with us fell outside AFCA’s jurisdiction. Of these complaints:

• 18% were excluded due to ineligibility, meaning AFCA could not accept the complaint
• 54% were excluded under a mandatory exclusion, meaning our Rules required us to exclude the complaint
• 28% were excluded under a discretionary exclusion, meaning we thought it was appropriate to exclude the complaint.

The top three reasons for ineligible complaints this year were:

1. Uninsured motorists lodging complaints against another motorist’s insurer for accidents when the insured had not lodged a valid claim. This is outside the Rules under Rule B.2.1 (f) (415 complaints, a 9% decrease from last year).
2. The complaint was lodged against a financial firm that was not a member of AFCA. This is outside the Rules under Rule A.4.2 (312 complaints, a 43% increase).
3. The complainant was not eligible to lodge a complaint for some other reason. For example, it was lodged on behalf of a deregistered business under Rule A.4.1 (275 complaints, a 13% decrease).

The top three reasons for mandatory exclusions this year were:

1. The complaint did not relate to a financial service or other category of complaint we can consider under our Rules. This is outside  Rule B.2.1 (a) (1,692 complaints, a 30% decrease from last year).
2. The complaint was previously dealt with by a Court, tribunal or former EDR scheme. We are required to exclude this under Rule C.1.2 (d) (266 complaints, a 3% increase).
3. The complaint related to the level of a fee, premium, charge or interest rate charged by a firm. We are required to exclude such complaints under Rule C.1.2 (a) (259 complaints, a 34% decrease).

The top three reasons for discretionary exclusions this year were:

1. The complainant’s paid representative did not provide the information we required from them, or did not meet our behavioural expectations under Rule C.2.2 (g) (519 complaints, an 89% increase from last year).
2. We had a reason to exclude the complaint beyond those listed in our Rules, such as the complaint having been previously settled under Rule C.2.1 (433 complaints, a 20% decrease).
3. We felt there was a more appropriate place to consider the complaint, such as in a court or another ombudsman scheme under Rule C.2.2 (a) (359 complaints, a 37% decrease).

Top three reasons complaints were outside the Rules – eligibility not met and number of complaints

Top three reasons complaints were outside the Rules – mandatory exclusions and number of complaints

Top three reasons complaints were outside the Rules – discretionary exclusions and number of complaints

Previous section - Complaints lodged by paid representatives

Next section - AFCA’s Systemic Issues function