Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Industry heads to front questions over cancelled accreditation

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 21 May 2014, 08:53 AM Agree 0
Australian Broker’s coverage of a broker who had his accreditation cancelled without a reason has inspired a meeting between brokers, the heads of industry associations, and senior aggregator staff
  • Simon Sami | 21 May 2014, 09:25 AM Agree 0
    NAB , did the same thing , still no reason provided . tried to discuss few times ,also aggregator contacted them , no explanation.
  • QEDRisk | 21 May 2014, 09:28 AM Agree 0
    Great initiative by IFBF and you can see by the attendee list who in the industry really cares about this issue! Well done to Outsource, Advantedge, Connective and the industry bodies for taking this on.
  • not so old broker | 21 May 2014, 09:53 AM Agree 0
    Has anyone stopped to think that the reason for his accreditation was cancelled might have something to do with a court case or AML matter, where the lender/aggregator is stopped by law from talking to anyone about it?
  • Craig | 21 May 2014, 11:20 AM Agree 0
    Advantedge are the kings at cancelling accreditations without providing reasons because they are run by clowns.
  • Skeptikal | 21 May 2014, 11:53 AM Agree 0
    Well Done IFBF, but one has to ask why didn't one of the Industry Bodies (who are happy to accept members fees) take this cause up???
  • Denise Brailey BFCSA (Inc) | 21 May 2014, 12:39 PM Agree 0
    Time for Brokers to ask the question: ASIC has had 4 years of power under NCCP to investigate Lender activities in the falsification of documents after brokers faxed the Loan Apps to the Lender. Why has no action been taken re these valid allegations and evidence from consumer borrowers. I have had discussions with ASIC chief on this issue. So why the silence from ASIC in tackling the product manufacturer? ASIC admit "the banks are the engineers" Why have the major banks created an internal "fraud unit" as a token but with only 1 and half persons who have been frustrated by their own bosses - see Senate evidence. Aggregators guaranteed everything that's happened as per lender agreements. We have copies. Fraud is internal process by credit assessors using whiteout - same as Scotland Yard found in the UK: "gallons of white-out used by the Bank". Why is ASIC refusing the past four years to go to the CDPP re the activity of the insiders in the banking system, as the Senators suggested recently. 30th May is when Senate Committee is due to hand down its findings regarding Inquiry into performance of ASIC. If ASIC was performing well, why the need for Federal Inquiry? There were a record number of formal public submissions tendered to any inquiry. Not one submission from Lenders. Consumers need a voice
  • Many sides | 21 May 2014, 03:07 PM Agree 0
    Why could you receive an accreditation loss?
    Was it potential or actual fraudulent or mis-leading application, was it consistency poor submission quality or were you completely contemptible when speaking to someone on the phone that was actually trying to manage a file issue.
    Your title may be 'Not so old Broker' but your comment is with sound insight.
    Dealing with potential 'at risk' files is a difficult situation.
    With a file that is 'with lumps' it can be difficult to decipher if it is customer, loan writer or a collusion of both or perhaps a foolishly relied upon third party that is not smelling of roses
    Lenders need to ensure accuracy wherever possible so that they protect all at risk parties.
    Sensitivity of 'faults' can also be challenging to expose.
    I seriously doubt there is one Aggregator that would not assist a Broker where they are able, the same for a Lender where time dealing with suspect files, broader factors to manage outside a single transaction and reputational risk is a key concern for business continuity.
    We can appreciate a suspect fraud needs to be reviewed, it takes time and can be a frustration, occasionally law enforcement departments need to be engaged. Not saying this is anyway related to those currently exposing the issue.
    How is it handled best? ....
    Imagine your reputation if review is required and the Lender stated the file is suspend pending investigation... your reputation gone or suffering somewhat. Suspect applications maybe unfortunate mistakes and issues will occur albeit contrived or accidental. A file under review requires careful review and it can not always be clear if the intent was deliberate.
    Experience reveals initially perceived 'bad' files will in many cases be overturned on closer investigation, you may have had one and simply thought the service was of poor management and in many cases actual loss of accreditation justifiable.
    It is easy to complain not quite so easy to appease all parties and ensure best practice of maintain lending integrity and relationship management.
    Is it a fact that the outcome on occasion simply will not appease all parties.
    If you have a solution where we can ensure compliance overall occurs then you are better than many that are involved already. Let us know.
    will be very interesting to hear of the meeting outcomes, hope there are plenty of open minds.
  • Patrick | 21 May 2014, 07:08 PM Agree 0
    Yet another problem with the whole aggregation model (ie bank's mates interposed to steal income). When you join an aggregator you are not given any details of the "head introducer agreement" between that aggregator and any lender. Your "sub-introducer agreement" will state that you are subject to the terms of all and any "head introducer agreements", but just try and get a copy!!! The reason the lender does not have to talk to the broker is that they have no contract with the broker, the cancellation is pursuant to the "head agreement" with the aggregator. The only recourse the broker has is to commence civil proceedings against the aggregator as an accessory to a breach of the Trade Practices Act by the lender for unconscionable conduct. This would not surprise me as most large companies including banks have no trade practices compliance program whatsoever and are constantly breach of their obligations in the high handed manner in which they deal with small business, eg brokers. The Trade Practices Act has now been amended to extend the protection for consumers to small business. However, just try and lodeg a complaint with ACCC, "too busy, underfunded, have you considered civil action" is what you will be told. Just like ASIC they are asleep at the wheel.
Post a reply