Determination - 23 November 2016


Summary of the complaint

The FSP was entitled to repossess the consumer’s vehicle and pass on enforcement fees it incurred relating to the consumer’s loan (noting the adjustment in the consumer’s favour made by the FSP). There was insufficient information to support the consumer’s claim that the FSP did not provide her with an opportunity to remedy the default on her loan.  Accordingly, the consumer’s complaint was not made out. 

Summary of Determination
 
  1. I find that the FSP was entitled to repossess the consumer’s vehicle, and that it did so in accordance with the requirements of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth).
     
  2. I also find that:
     
  • there is insufficient information to support the consumer’s claim that the FSP did not provide her with an opportunity to remedy the default on her loan, and
     
  • the FSP was entitled to charge enforcement fees (noting the adjustment in the consumer’s favour made by the FSP in response to an issue identified by CIO)

This Determination affirms the position set out in our Review dated 15 June 2016 (the Review). I do not propose to restate that analysis but instead adopt it for the purposes of this Determination. A copy of the Review is attached.

Follow this link for a full copy in PDF >> Determination | 23 November 2016