Tuesday, 7 February, 2012 5:57 PM AEST


log in / free register · change details · about · contact · subscribe · newsletter · advertise · mobile recent searches: ing life, ing group, asian sectors, michael psaros, firstchoice,
 

Proposed FOS terms spark concerns

Significant number of submissions

Kate Kachor
By Kate Kachor
Thu 14 May 2009

FOS's proposed new terms of reference have attracted a large number of submissions from the industry.


Concerns over the Financial Ombudsman Service's (FOS) proposed new terms of reference (TOR) has prompted a significant number of submissions from within the financial services industry.

FOS, through management consulting practice The Navigator Company, has received around 30 submissions questioning the TOR.

"It's a significant number of submissions," The Navigator Company director Phil Khoury told InvestorDaily.

"Clearly jurisdictional limits is a hot topic, monetary limits and the types of disputes that will be admitted," he said.

"The third area, which drives most of the comment, is in making a single term of reference. Of the existing sectors there is a number of different practices and different limits that apply and people are having to come to grips with what that will mean in their context."

The firm was accepting and reviewing industry submissions until 20 May and will provide recommendations to FOS's board when it meets on 28 May, Khoury said.

There are two examples of FOS's existing and proposed jurisdiction that are most concerning, according to Mark Halsey, principal of Perth-based financial services law firm Halsey Legal Services.

The first is that the FOS is prepared to make determinations against AFS licensees regarding complaints relating to matters that are not included in the definition of financial services under either the Corporations Act 2001 definition or under the ASIC Act 2001 definition, Halsey said.

The second is that the Financial Industry Complaints Services (FICS) and now FOS have adopted the FICS rules, allowing FOS to hear complaints from non-retail clients.

"It must logically lead to a broader range of potential claims against AFS licensees than those contemplated by the parliament, and hence a cost burden on the industry at the worst possible time. We do not see any justification or political mandate to impose such a burden on AFS licensees," he said.

Go to today's InvestorDaily news

More stories by this author


 

Latest videos

VIDEO: Make the nest egg last the distance

Retirees face the risk of running out of money. We asked Macquarie Funds Group's head of longevity risk solutions Andrew Robertson how this can be avoided.... Watch»

In defence of small funds

As debate about super fund size continues, are smaller funds looking at ways to gain scale?... Watch»

Timbercorp Orchard Trust ripe for takeover

New investment company Hamilton Securities announces takeover bid for debentures of the Timbercorp Orchard Trust... Watch»

Christine St Anne

Goodbye to all that

Many in the industry would have been bogged down in submissions given the plethora of government reviews. Next year it will be the government's turn to act on the reviews. ... read more »

Home delivered!

Daily news, weekday mornings

Get the day's news delivered direct to your inbox. Register here (it's free!) and choose 'yes' to receive the InvestorDaily newsletter.

Money on the move

Russell revamps international shares funds »
A new year and a new strategy have meant a reshuffle for the Russell international shares funds.

IFM invests in desalination plant »
The industry super fund backed group has taken a stake in Victoria's desalination plant.

Kate Kachor

Another year, another headache

It is less than one month into the year and things appear to be starting off no better than last year. ... read more »

 

 
© Copyright 2009 Morningstar Australasia Pty Limited · legal · privacy policy · linking to us · community · powered by RedDot