Review | 23 May 2016


  • Investment loans
  • Company borrowers
  • Unregulated loans
  • Credit provider
  • Misrepresentation/Misleading conduct
  • Unconscionable conduct
  • Inappropriate finance 
We found that the consumers suffered no loss in relation to their claims that:
 
  1. they were misled by the broker and/or the FSP about the application of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) to the loans, 
  2. the FSP inappropriately provided notices to them, and 
  3. FSP failed to respond to them regarding their concerns in relation to the loans.
 
The consumers’ claims below were not made out:
 
  1. they were misled by the broker about the equalisation fees charged under the loan agreements, 
  2. the equalisation fees were unconscionable, 
  3. the FSP breached CIO Rules or engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to the financial hardship assistance that it offered to the consumers, and
  4. the FSP provided inappropriate finance to the consumers.
 
We were unable to deal with the consumers’ claim that the loan to value ratio across their two loans was inappropriate or their claim that their properties were overvalued.
 

The Review was referred to the Ombudsman for a Determination

Follow this link for a full copy in PDF  Review | 23 May 2016