Debt Collection Specialists | Sydney | LCollect
Debt Collection Agency | LCollect

Debt Collection News


At LCollect we believe that knowledge is power. Every month our debt collection blog gives you practical tips, stories and news from around Australia and the world.

COSL Systemic Issues Update Q3 2017-2018

Thursday, June 28, 2018 - Posted by Michael McCulloch

The Credit and Investments Ombudsman (COSL) has recently their quarterly systemic issues update for Q3 2017/2018.

A summary of each recommendation and review is provided below and is courtesy of FSP News:

Review | 16 September 2017
Case Summary

We find that:

  • The consumer’s claim the financial services provider (FSP) was not the legal owner of the debt when the default notices were issued has not been made out.
  • The FSP was merely exercising its own commercial decision when it decided not to release the full funds from an earlier sale of one of the security properties in 2015.
  • The consumer’s claim that he is in front with his payments has not been made out.
  • The FSP is not required to provide hardship assistance, such as a moratorium on payments.
This Review was subsequently referred to the Ombudsman for a Determination.

Download Review 16 September 2017

Recommendation | 13 November 2017
Case Summary

  • The consumer leased a laptop from the FSP.
  • The consumer claimed that the FSP’s documentation is misleading and deceptive.
  • The consumer claimed that the FSP inappropriately sent her correspondence.
  • We found that the consumer’s claim that FSP’s documentation is misleading or deceptive was not established.
  • We found that the FSP’s offer to refund the administration fee of $110 to the consumer reasonably compensated the consumer for any loss that she may have suffered as a result of the FSP’s error and recommended that the consumer accept the FSP’s offer to refund the administration fee.
  • After issuing the Recommendation, CIO had further discussions with the parties and negotiated a resolution to the complaint better than that which was recommended.
  • The FSP agreed to refund the consumer all monies paid above the invoice price of the original broken laptop, being the amount of $1,086.18, replaced the broken laptop with a brand new latest model laptop and transferred ownership of the new laptop to the consumer.

Recommendation | 13 November 2017
Case Summary

The FSP provided credit assistance to the consumer to enter into a mortgage.

  • The consumer fell into default with its commercial car loan repayments and the FSP repossessed the vehicle.
  • The consumer claimed that the vehicle was illegally repossessed and that they were prevented from collecting personal goods from the vehicle.
  • The consumer also claimed that items were stolen from the vehicle after it was repossessed.
  • The consumer claimed that the enforcement costs charged were excessive.
  • We found that the FSP was entitled to repossess the vehicle and did so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan contract.
  • We found that the FSP did not prevent the consumer from collecting his personal belongings from the vehicle.
  • We are not the appropriate forum to consider the claim relating to items allegedly stolen from the vehicle.
  • We found that the FSP was entitled to pass on enforcement costs it incurred in relation to the consumer’s loan. 
  • We found that the enforcement costs charged by the FSP were incorrectly applied to the loan account, as the FSP should not have charged the consumer for the reduced input tax credit rebate it was entitled to.

Recent Posts


Tags


Archive

Copyright © LCollect 2018 | All Rights Reserved | Licensed Mercantile Agent License #409661517 | ABN 44 089 892 688 |
Australian Credit Licence #430659
HomeSite Information | Privacy Policy