Every three to five years, CIO commissions an external reviewer to undertake an independent review, which is outlined in CIO’s Constitution and required by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) RG-139 (approval and oversight of external dispute resolution schemes).
The review covers:
Follow the links below for a full copy PDF of each submission
>> PDF download | Independent Review on Operations 2012
>> PDF download | Independent Review on Operations 2008
>> PDF download | CIO Review Status Table - Nov 2013
CIO should amend its Rules to give it power to make public any non-compliance by a member with a CIO direction, including through media release and Annual Report.
The CIO Board considered that this recommendation, like that of recommendation 47, could expose CIO to a claim of defamation. In any event, members and former members who fail to comply with a CIO direction are reported to ASIC. This may have significant implications for their ability to continue to hold an ASIC-issued licence.
After CIO and its stakeholders have had some experience with Position Statement No. 4 “Default Listings on Individuals’ Credit Information Files”, CIO should analyse trends in relation to default listing complaints and undertake a review, in conjunction with stakeholders, to see if CIO’s approach or fees are driving consumer practices that undermine credit reporting and, if so, whether CIO should make any changes.
The Board did not agree with the suggestion that complaint fees are driving credit repair agencies to undermine the integrity of credit reporting. However, the Board will continue to monitor trends and consult stakeholders in relation to default listings complaints.
If a member fails to comply with a CIO Determination which awards compensation to a complainant, CIO should, if appropriate, take legal proceedings to recover the amount of the award, as well as the costs in bringing the proceedings.
The CIO Board considered that it was not the role of CIO to enforce a determination through legal proceedings given that it was questionable whether it had standing to do so and, if it did, having regard to the potentially significant legal cost involved. The complainant was nonetheless free to pursue proceedings in its own right.
CIO should consult with stakeholders as to the merits of CIO amending its Rules to give it the power to disclose publicly the names of any members or ex-members who fail to comply with a CIO determination.
The CIO Board considered that it was not its role to publicly name members or former members who had failed to comply with a CIO determination. The Board further considered that this recommendation, like that of recommendation 32, could expose CIO to a claim of defamation. However, members who fail to comply with a CIO determination can be expelled from membership and are reported to ASIC. This may have significant implications for their ability to continue to hold an ASIC-issued licence.
CIO will continue implementing the other recommendations suggested in the review over the next twelve months or so.