Determinations

You can download de-identified Determinations from our archive.

The consumer has 28 days to accept or reject the Ombudsman’s Determination. If the consumer does not accept the Determination, the complaint is closed but the consumer is free to pursue the complaint elsewhere. If the consumer accepts the Determination, the FSP is bound by it. Once the FSP has given effect to the Determination, the complaint is closed.

Please see below for Determinations made by the Ombudsman. 

  • Determination - 31 March 2017Service provided | Fees | Financial planning advice | Financial planner
  • Determination - 28 March 2017Mortgage | Notice of change in mortgage manager | Delayed settlement of refinance | Mortgage broker
  • Determination - 28 March 2017 (b)Investment loan | Responsible lending obligations | Breach | No loss | Lender
  • Determination - 15 February 2017Requesting hardship assistance as a guarantor | Reduced debt arrangements | Privacy issues
  • Determination - 23 November 2016 (a)Car loan | Credit provider | Failure to provide notice of default | Failure to adhere to ACCC/ASIC guidelines
  • Determination - 23 November 2016 (b)Investment loans | Company borrowers | Unregulated loans | Credit provider; Misrepresentation/Misleading conduct | Unconscionable conduct; Inappropriate finance
  • Determination - 11 November 2016Mortgage | Third party conduct | Not a member of CIO
  • Determination - 24 October 2016Car loan with NZ company | debt collection | outside of CIO’s jurisdiction 
  • Determination - 21 October 2016Short-term loan | Misrepresentation | Bankruptcy | Financial loss | Non-financial loss
  • Determination - 22 July 2016Financial product/investment loans | lender | delayed settlement of loan and loan refinance | FSP provided inaccurate information about the loan discharge | FSP attempted to recover loan funds in an inappropriate manner
  • Determination - 11 July 2016Investment loan | poor customer service | misleading information concerning a credit product | misleading information concerning interest rate charges
  • Determination - 8 June 2016Home loan | Financial Hardship - payment arrangement | Breach of CIO Rules - Enforcement action | Repossession of property during an active complaint
  • Determination - 24 November 2015Refinance | mortgage broker | failure to provide services with due care and skill | insufficient funds to complete refinance
  • Determination - 1 July 2015Credit | Unconscionable conduct | Unaffordable loan | Mortgage broker
  • Determination - 29 June 2015Credit | Mortgage Lender | Unlicensed credit
  • Determination - 26 June 2015Credit | Debt negotiation services | Fees and charges
  • Determination - 28 April 2015Financial advice | advice provided by non-CIO member
  • Determination - 22 December 2014Financial advice | Mortgage broker | Dishonest conduct | Unlicensed financial advice
  • Determination - 18 December 2014Financial advice | Mortgage broker | Dishonest conduct | Unlicensed financial advice
  • Determination - 17 December 2014Credit | Payday lender | Application of National Credit Code | Unjust contract | Provisions of contract not adequately explained
  • Determination - 15 December 2014Credit | Mortgage broker | Responsible lending | Unsuitable credit contract | Affordability
  • Determination - 15 December 2014 (2)Credit Mortgage broker | Responsible lending | Unsuitable credit contract | Affordability
  • Determination - 8 December 2014Credit | Mortgage lender | Contract not unjust | Consumers able to protect their own interest | Compliance with lending guidelines | Deferred establishment fee not unlawful
  • Determination - 5 December 2014 (2)Credit Mortgage broker | Unconscionable conduct | Loan manifestly inappropriate for consumers | Reckless indifference to risk to consumers of default and loss of home
  • Determination - 5 December 2014 (3)Credit Motor vehicle lease | Unjust contract | Affordability | Inadequate explanation of terms
  • Determination - 4 December 2014Financial advice | Financial adviser | Inappropriate advice | Geared investments | Self-managed superannuation fund | Tax treatment of compensation
  • Determination - 26 September 2014Credit Mortgage lender | Unjust contract | Vulnerable consumer | No benefit obtained from transaction
  • Determination - 20 June 2014Whether a financial services provider breached its duty of care to a consumer in giving advice on an investment property transaction.
  • Determination - 10 June 2014Whether the credit contract correctly discloses the amount of credit being provided, and whether the consumer actually received the full amount of the credit.
  • Determination - 4 June 2014Whether the mortgagee exercised due care and skill by withholding its consent to the higher sale price of the consumers’ property.
  • Determination - 7 March 2014Whether the financial services provider engaged in unconscionable conduct in its dealings with the consumer under a debt negotiation service agreement.
  • Determination - 25 February 2014Whether the financial services provider: provided the service it was contracted to provide the consumer; and is entitled to retain the service fees paid by the consumer
  • Determination - 13 January 2014Application of the National Credit Code to short term credit contracts | Responsible lending obligations of credit assistance providers and credit providers | Disclosure requirements of the National Credit Code | Breach of 48% APR cap | Misleading conduct
  • Determination - 7 January 2014Inappropriate inancial advice
  • Determination - 5 December 2013Finance broker misappropriated the complainant’s funds | Counterclaim against the consumer for any of the funds
  • Determination - 19 August 2013Mortgage broker arranged unaffordable home loans | Unconscionable conduct under the ASIC Act
  • Determination - 12 July 2013Whether the FSP provided its services to the consumer with due care and skill
  • Determination - 5 July 2013Breached of duty of care | Negligent advice | Unconscionable conduct
  • Determination - 21 June 2013Inappropriate financial advice | Complaint made to COSL within required time
  • Determination - 24 January 2013Whether the FSP is entitled to retain a brokerage fee paid by the consumers 
  • Determination - 8 January 2013Whether the finance broker is entitled to payment of a brokerage fee by the complainants. 
  • Determination - 20 December 2012Whether after the sale of mortgaged goods, the credit provider dealt with the gross sale proceeds in a manner consistent with the process set out in the National Credit Code (the Code) and the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 (NCCPR). 
  • Determination - 19 December 2012Whether after the sale of mortgaged goods, the credit provider dealt with the gross sale proceeds in a manner consistent with the process set out in the National Credit Code (the Code) and the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 (NCCPR). 
  • Determination - 19 December 2012 aWhether after the sale of mortgaged goods, the credit provider dealt with the gross sale proceeds in a manner consistent with the process set out in the National Credit Code (the Code) and the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 (NCCPR). 
  • Determination - 23 September 2010Whether the broker fee was a legally permissible fee under the COSL Rules; and whether the demand by or receipt of the broker fee by the member was in breach of the law.
  • Determination - 30 July 2010Whether the particular application fees were legally permissible fees within the meaning of the Rules of the Credit Ombudsman Service. Whether the charging of these fees was disclosed and authorised. 
  • Determination - 24 April 2009Broker | Loss suffered by consumer
  • Determination - 2 March 2009Broker | Loss suffered by consumers
  • Determination - 27 August 2007The issue in the present case is whether Mr K’s or the member’s conduct was such as to have caused the complainants to suffer a loss for which they are entitled to be compensated. 
  • Determination - 28 May 2007The issue in the present case is whether the Broker’s conduct was such as to have caused the complainants to suffer a loss for which they are entitled to be compensated.
  • Determination - 8 January 2007The issue in the present case is whether the complainants are entitled to a refund of the ERF paid by them on the discharge of their second loan on the basis of Mr D’s oral representation to Ms B about the ERF waiver.
  • Determination - 29 December 2006The issue in the present case is whether Lender A’s failure to correctly amend the frequency and amount of the repayments in accordance with the complainants’ instructions and Lender A’s inability to “refinance” the loan (and arrears), caused the complainants to suffer a loss for which they are entitled to be compensated.