Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA)

AFCA says it’s independent authority, but in reality they work for bank. I my case they even don’t talk about the core concern of my complaint and give it in banks favour.

When I asked for help to have banks change their rules so they can't just close customers' accounts in order to have us do what they command, I was told that is not the role of AFCA, that I can only act on my own behalf and that I should take the $500 offered to me for a nice dinner out instead. After closing this complaint because I am not… Read more

interested in money, I want action, I have found out that AFCA is funded by the financial institutions they are meant to be impartial to. How is this fair for customers? Where do we go to be heard? I am disgusted by the unethical practice of companies, especially in the financial industry. What a parasitic, sad game to play with human lives. We need to do better than this.

I went to AFCA wholeheartedly, hoping to get a fair assessment of my disagreement with my bank. It turned out that AFCA completely ignored my argument and sided with the bank. AFCA, in fact, is nowhere near what it claims to be. My experience demonstrated that AFCA is not an independent organisation, but a puppet of the bank. Fairness is not exhibited in the organisation.

FAST! We had an issue with a service provider and within 24 hrs AFCA had contacted the provider - 5 stars for that! The provider contacted us almost immediatley (forgot to copy all the people so created an issue). We responded and the issue is not resolved. Soooo impressive to see the speed of action of AFCA. Congratulations to all the team.

Has a notoriously BAD name .in bed with the banks.not independent.elder abuse to the elderly who don't understand phone apps.will string you out to burn you off ..report to U.N.England your complaint Responsible banking

These guys are an absolute JOKE!!!! Never has the saying been truer than "HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE" . AFCA is there to make like they are independent from the financial institutions that pay their wages and call their tunes. Before… Read more

complaining to AFCA please look at the website and see where most of their staff have come from!!! THE FINANCE INDUSTRY!!!!! SURPRISE SURPRISE. Maybe another banking royal commission is in order. Replace a government funded overseeing body with one that is funded by the industry that it polices!! THIS MUST BE A JOKE AS ARE THEIR "INDEPENDENT" OFFICERS.

In short dont waste your time.

Had a complaint re travel insurance which was going for 5 months so I complained to AFCA, got quick responses from them and the insurance company paid out the substantial claim with in a month.

I would like to sincerely thank AFCA for assisting me in resolving my complaint. When I first encountered the issue, I felt overwhelmed and uncertain about my rights. As an ordinary consumer, it can feel intimidating to challenge a financial provider. However, through AFCA’s process, I experienced fairness, structure, and accountability. The… Read more

system works.

Because there was an independent body reviewing the matter, the overcharged amount was returned to me. Without this pathway, I believe the outcome may have been very different. The existence of AFCA gives ordinary people confidence that they are not alone and that fairness is not just an ideal, but something practical and achievable.

I encourage anyone who feels powerless to seek help and to use the complaint system properly. It is there for a reason. Stand up respectfully, provide your evidence, and trust the process.

Thank you AFCA for providing a fair and balanced dispute resolution service. I respect the system, and I am grateful that it exists.

this institution claims to solve half cases at mediation level, which is a high ratio, so I filed a complaint at AFCA after ANZ bank refused to process a chargeback on a cancelled non refundable airline booking (reason code: service not rendered), and it worked, the 4th level of customer service of ANZ when contacted by the AFCA refunded the debit… Read more

at ANZ expense (the issue went through 3 levels of customer service before: transactions disputes, transactions disputes 2nd level when the airline challenged chargeback, customer service complaints), ANZ then did not seek to argue anymore, so I highly recommend AFCA, I wasn't optimistic with all the negative reviews here, I was worried this authority may not be independent from banks, any dissatisfied customer should try it, it is free and does not take much time to get an outcome

An organisation clearly bought and paid for by the financial institutions. My experience showed the organisation had no interest in the real issue and were there to cover for the banks.

I am total disgusted & disappointed with the outcome from them looking into a complaint about RAC Insurance. I have waisted about a year with them looking into my complaint (supposedly) for the outcome to be the same. I have photographs of the water staining on the ceiling etc & they said that wasn’t enough proof. Take my advice & don’t waste your… Read more

time & running around to get quotes for this that & something else & in the end the say not we won’t be getting any compensation for that & to bad about the fact that you have been putting up with this. We have had 1/2 a room of ceiling & 1/2 of a room of carpet that the insurance company had cut out in our lounge room & it is all bad luck but the insurance won’t be covering it. In the end you just get worn down & they win I am seriously think whether I would have house insurance again,maybe take my chances & if you have storm damage you can replace everything with the money you save with not paying insurance policy costs. We had insurance with the same company for 11 years & 1 other small claim but that means nothing, they just don’t want to payout at all but definitely aren’t backward in taking your money & AFCA back them. IT IS A LEGAL SCAM. I was dealing with [Name Removed] & from my experience I think that AFCA is a total waste of tax payers money.

Useless. A waste of about 5 or 6 months. Not fit for purpose. "Financial" in AFCA connotes money, arithmetic etc. They refused to do sums, or basic arithmetic - instead batting back to the complainant with useless verbiage. They grope for a technicality to refuse to consider the complaint using sums/arithmetic. If a 5% disparity in published Unit… Read more

Price for the day - is in the opposite direction to the rest of the market - if that is not sufficient for them to consider - what about a 25% disparity ? Note with a spread of 40 global stocks - it is not possible that the combined result of the 40 stocks would give a result multiples worse than the relevant indices - thereby indicating fraud, especially when no stock comprises more than 5% of the holdings of the Unit Trust. The unit trust provider provided just a single outlier stock for that day, which would not explain the the significant drop for the 40. I was dissatisfied with the service of [Name Removed], [Name Removed] and [Name Removed] of AFCA. I note the overall score from reviewers of AFCA is 1.5*( 1.5 star)- very low, considering a reviewer can't score less than 1* This review is in the interests of Public Service cc ASIC & Minister for Finance

Gave them 1 star only because I can't give lower. They should change their acronym to IDGAF because that's basically what they said after about 8 months. They are beholden to the Insurer who in this case was Budget Direct why were just as arrogant and ignorant than AFCA themselves. Do not bother with AFCA. Go straight to the courts or better yet -… Read more

go to the media. Authority Groups and Insurance companies like these need to be held accountable. They clearly are not impartial. You only need look at the reviews here.

these useless ****s are even more useless and corrupt as the utterly corrupt to the core banking system is in the first place that these shower of morons are supposed to protect us from. It is cosplay of democracy. Gave 1 star because there was not an option for sub zero

Repeatedly, the same pattern occurs with the AFCA team, and it’s clear that government agencies have no interest in addressing this terrible service. This doesn't surprise me because the underlying issue isn’t the person or people involved but the dark and cheater-like behaviour embedded in the AFCA process. I am here to prove my point that AFCA… Read more

in no way supports racism or discrimination against anyone. Unfortunately, I deal directly with this kind of behaviour, which is why I stand firm in my conviction. I want to see if there is an honest person within AFCA, and I am willing to find out. I will not give up on seeking the right path and a fair resolution for those affected by AFCA’s misleading statements, bias, and abuse of power—closing cases without facts, making it harder to understand the real issues. It’s shameful that every complaint I make is sent to the junk mail department, ignored by AFCA staff. This is a terrible way to handle complaints.

They are useless and more often than not will side with the financial company (in my experience it was PayPal over a PayPal Pay in 4 payment that was charged twice and money that they owed me. Finally got a response from PayPal today that said my balance is clear, so they don't owe me and according to their records they didn't double charge me… Read more

even though my bank statement shows they did. You can't use PayPal or Pay in 4 if your PayPal balance is in debit, so why wouldn't you clear it? Either their Administration, Financial and Investigation teams are useless or they're liars (probably a reason why companies like Amazon and smaller businesses don't like or use them)). You're better off not bothering to use them and just consider your financial dispute as a loss because nobody stands up for the little guy, you just have to wait for a major stuff up of theirs to happen. If you ask me the best Ombudsman or any financial help is the Telecommunications Ombudsman because Telcos seem to be scared of them.

The process is ineffective and disingenuous. There is little evidence to support that the decisions made are independent. Information appears to be manipulated to justify the outcome. I would not recommend the assistance of AFCA.

I believe AFCA are not doing their job either but just letting Ubank get away with it.....Ubank a subsidies of National Australia Bank Is causing fraud by keep a closed account open for over 2 years and has had money refunded into it and refuse to refund it back and

Absoloutely one of the most corrupt organisations on earth full of incompetence and genuinely evil people. Save yourself the time and pursue legal avenues rather than deal with this mob. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

They deserve zero stars. Basically what everyone else says. Usually I want to write detailed reviews, but plenty has already been said. They are unfair, absolutely biased, ignores evidence you put forwards, then criticises your behaviour and contradict themselves in their determinations and letters (which are riddled with errors), and on more than… Read more

one occasion with two different workers, I had to deal the extremely unprofessional workers who were rude and aggressive. I was blindsided by the bank being allowed to bring TWO staff to the mediation session while I was ACTIVELY discouraged from bringing a support person because despite being allowed to, I was told I didn't have to because "AFCA is [my] support person/advocate". I was also told that the mediation is only so the two parties can discuss but the information won't be used for anything. ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. Then when I asked a question, can't remember what, the worker said this case has gone on long enough (almost 18 months) and so I shouldn't be asking what I am asking, then said they were disappointed at me for asking if I can still go to court after the AFCA process is over! COMPLETELY APPALLING.

Wanted to add a point on AFCA's transparency: they are NOT transparent. During a mediation, they said the 3-way call (me, the financial institution, and the AFCA worker) will be recorded, but neither that nor their notes are available for distribution, meaning you can't get a copy of their notes or recorded call. They also don't explain their conflicting decisions, and their determinations are in the format "[insert their view or assumption] + [therefore I think (yes, they use first person)] + determination".

Why hasn't anyone in the government looked at this sham of an organisation? If Robodebt can be investigated and overturned, and if Colin Manock's decisions can be re-opened and reconsidered, then so should AFCA's. Anyone reading this and not satisfied with AFCA, please join this group to fight them! We are collectively submitting an inquiry to the Australian Senate. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1827465761124039.

QLD MP Mr. Colin Boyce is assisting with our fight to take this to Senate, and want to hear from other victims. Please get in touch now!

AFCA appears to be ineffective. I am surprised that the Australian government permits this organisation to operate within the country. It seems to primarily protect financial institutions at the expense of citizens. I encourage Australian citizens to reach out to the Prime Minister, government officials, and parliament members to advocate for the… Read more

organisation's shutdown. The government should scrutinise AFCA for potential corruption and links to organised crime, including any secret collaborations with financial institutions against the public. The numerous negative comments about AFCA suggest an urgent need for investigation and a halt to its questionable activities. Citizens are urged to contact the Australian Parliament promptly.

The whole entity is rotten to the core and only protect the banks' interests. Don't bother going to them. Westpac provided a wrongful advice, in writing, that I relied on. I suffered a loss. AFCA found that Westpac did provide the wrongful advice. What's disturbing is that despite the findings of the wrongful advice, AFCA decided that Westpac… Read more

shouldn't compensate me for my loss at all. No matter what, AFCA will inevitably conclude a financial institution is a victim. The Government should abolish this corrupt entity whose only mission is to protect financial institutions.

Recent AFCA decisions have made me realise that AFCA has evolved into nothing but a fully obsequious arm of the Australian financial sector, that has no interest in consumer rights whatsoever. Far from being a proclaimed ‘independent authority’, AFCA by its own actions is nothing more than a rubber stamping institution for everything the finance… Read more

sector wants to do that is illegal, immoral, and unethical against consumers.

Evidence of blatant lying by banks is routinely ignored in preference to decisions that favour the banks. Past fines issued by their overseer ASIC no less, and significant criminal court loses are just looked past and ignored as if they constitute no precedence or pattern of behaviour in favour again of rulings in the bank’s favour. AFCA is openly funded by the financial sector, so it is perhaps grossly naïve to think that AFCA’s claimed ‘independence’ isn’t severely compromised by monetary incentive. In short, in order to protect the jobs of all the ex-finance sector employees now working at AFCA, it has become existentially necessary for AFCA to just decide every case in favour of the financial institution regardless of the evidence against them.

AFCA’s determinations are written in such a way as to be obvious the decision was arrived at first, and then the reasoning was moulded to fit that conclusion, again always in the financial institution favour.

If you're thinking about submitting a case to AFCA, I can save you a lot of time. Don't bother. If you think you need help from AFCA for anything financial, I'm afraid you've already lost. There's a reason why when you complain to a financial institution, they will always try hard to palm you off onto AFCA instead as quickly as they can. They know they'll win any case that goes to AFCA and it's worth the peppercorn fee they have to pay them rather than having to pay their own staff to investigate and decide a case internally. They will happily outsource a case to AFCA when they know 100% that AFCA have their backs and will decide the case in their favour everytime. It's a win-win for the banks and for AFCA. AFCA get paid their fee, and the financial institution gets to continue acting illegally safe in the knowledge they won't ever get pulled up for doing so. The consumer? pffftttt, who gives a stuff about the consumer‽

You need to understand AFCAs rules, the Insurers, and their Collins St Solicitors use them to their advantage and the Insurers / Banks have the cash to manipulate the experts reports to suit their narrative. They will say the experts are external, not biased etc. A lot of the so-called expert’s bread and butter jobs are from this sector and the… Read more

insurer pays their invoice, so take that with a grain of salt. Secondly the experts will be given a scope to work with, a scope they are only required to investigate and comment from. So, they are not viewing the issue from a helicopter, they are at ground level, looking through a pin hole as requested by the insurer. The experts, if challenged are covered in most cases as they have done their job as per the scope requested from the insurer. As they are labelled as an expert, AFCA's rules when applied, mean that AFCA will put more weight on experts reports than anything you say. You may point out the legalities of the issue at hand, how the law was broken. It does not matter, AFCAs rules state they cannot test this, they cannot test the experts report if the expert, via the scope does not mention this legal error or any other errors. If you know legal documents exist, but your insurer withholds them from you and AFCA to achieve a better outcome and limit their exposure / losses or failure to comply with their code of conduct, AFCA can do nothing, as again, AFCAs rules rely on documents. AFCA cannot force them to supply the mandatory legal documents, AFCAs rules again. You can tell AFCA about these documents, but you are not a Solicitor, who is trying to mitigate the insurers losses / errors or hide failure in relation to the Code of Conduct, AFCA will believe the Solicitor every time. Do not presume AFCA will stand up for you because you think AFCA will be smart enough to see that the Collins St Solicitors are lying. AFCAs rules don’t work like that they cannot test the legalities. You presume AFCA is there for you. They are not, AFCA have rules and the Insurers and their Collins St Solicitors know them back the front. You may realise this and get your own Solicitors, but you will never be able to afford the high end $600 per hour team of Solicitors from Collins St they will have. Basically, you are stuffed, even when legislation and common sense are on your side, AFCA puts more weight on experts and Solicitors are deemed experts, you are deemed a nothing.

So, what have we learnt. AFCA cannot test a dam thing, they put weight on experts and documents created at the time and what they think most likely happened. As far as legislation, not their job, can’t test it or look into it or confirm it, if the expert / Solicitor states it blue and it in fact is red, the experts / Solicitor’s word is believed over yours. Again even when its common sense, not AFCAs job. AFCA cannot check if it’s red or blue. Their rules dictate that the Solicitor / Expert statements and documentation exceed yours so if the expert / Solicitor say its blue then its blue. The experts has not been given a proper view to document and the Solicitor is there to represent the insurer and mitigate their exposure, they are not working for you, do not think they will tell the truth. Do not think the insurers or the insurers solicitors will give you access to documentation you know exists and will help you. They will lose the document and AFCA are powerless to rectify this. If you say the documents exist and the insurers solicitors say they do not, AFCAs rules will slaughter you and the Insurer and their solicitors know this. You are considered a no body, the Solicitors are considered experts and as such have more weight in AFCAs. The documents may be mandatory legal documents that have to exist, this means nothing to AFCA because AFCA cannot test this and if the Solicitor states they dont exist, then that's what AFCA will take on board.

It would seem you could make any document you wanted, even make it look like it’s from a Barrister, Queens Council, it can be fictitious, it’s not tested and if their Solicitors don’t pick up on it or cannot prove it, then your Barrister trumps their Solicitor, that’s how AFCAs rules work. Nothing to do with the truth or facts. If the Insurer does not have documents you have, that may not be beneficial to your cause, you do not have to share them, it’s not about the truth or facts. You can state they do not exist, but get your fictious Barristers letter head to do so. You as an individual have no hope against a Solicitor or expert as AFCAs rules mean they will take more notice from a manipulated expert and Solicitor mitigating their losses / exposure. AFCAs decision is final, the insurer has no come back from AFCAs decision and neither do you even if the decision is against legislation or you plain straight out lied or made up the paperwork, AFCA is immune. AFCA will tell you that you can have your case reviewed, but this is not the true, even the AFCA employees do not understand their own system. The review is on their procedures’, time frame and how they handled the issue. So basically, you can prove how legislation was broken, how the Solicitors lied and how the experts were manipulated but this ignored, the decision is made / final. The review only looks at how AFCA handled the situation, how it progressed through there system and how their people treated you. At best they may fix spelling mistake or name on the decision document. Now the boot is on the other foot, it is up to the insurer to find document, look into legislation, prove the fictitious experts are wrong or have been manipulated to only comment on certain aspects. Find your fictitious Solicitor / Barrister, disprove your ten specialist report that confirm the same. This will cost them a few hundred thousand. Remember, when you ask for information of your insurer, they will pull the client privilege card, the privacy card, the freedom of information card, the risk assessment card, the our employees privacy card, the she / he does not work here anymore card and several more. Play them at their own game, they may eventually get you, but remember they have calculated the risk when they do this to you to mitigate their losses after all that ultimately how they why they exist. Do the same to them, we are talking several years here to obtain enough information to disprove you and take you to court, or will they take it on the chin and say “dang, we got got at our own game” After all these slippery buggers know if you were to spend a few hundred thousand proving they manipulated the system and lied, nothing will happen to them, they will blame it on a past dead employee who was disgruntled and did not follow their procedure, and they will state they have review and trained their employees since then and it will never happen again. Well, you had mental health issues, thought you were a Barrister, and you have proof, because you have an old document from your doctor and shrink where you were treated a week before the AFCA decision that is final! I did not make the rules, I was a recipient of how they were manipulated and after five years of seeing how it unfolds this is the new way to go. AFCA can do nothing about this and if enough people get on board, AFCA will be forced to change its stupid rules and start testing statements and reports instead of just believing the person with the biggest tool.

It's not about being truthful, doing the right thing, being honest, being moral, it about using the broken system to recoup your losses by using the insurers and their Collins St Solicitors tactics and AFCAs rules against the insurer as they will to you. Two wrongs may make it right and may force change.

Some informatioon to ponder. The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) make the rules. Your premiums go to your insurer and the insurer fund the ICA. The president of the ICA is the CEO of IAG, CGU, NRMA, WFI and ROLLiN. Yes the wolf is in charge of the sheep and it gets better! AFCA has members, guess who the members are? Every insurance member above and more. Guess how AFCA is funded? Correct, from the insurer and ultimatly from your premium. Have a hard think about that? We once had an indipendant ombudsman. Now the two dogs are fed by the one master and these muts would be hesitant to bite the had that feeds them.