Complaints outside AFCA’s Rules

The AFCA Rules set out the processes that apply to all complaints submitted to the AFCA scheme, including superannuation complaints.

Our AFCA Rules team reviews complaints when questions are raised about whether a complaint is within our jurisdiction.

Where a complaint is excluded under AFCA Rules

Sometimes consumers and small businesses lodge complaints that might be outside our Rules.

If the financial firm consents and we consider it appropriate, then we are able to consider these complaints.

Where AFCA is unable to consider a complaint, we provide helpful information to complainants about other ways they may be able to resolve their complaints outside AFCA. We may refer them to an appropriate other body or place where they can be assisted.

Reasons for complaints outside AFCA’s jurisdiction

In the 2021–22 financial year, we excluded 8,282 complaints as outside AFCA’s jurisdiction. The majority of these complaints (77%) were excluded on the basis of a mandatory exclusion.

For AFCA to consider a complaint, it must:

• fall within the scope of the complaints we can consider
• be lodged against a financial firm that is a current member of AFCA
• be lodged within AFCA’s time limits (the “eligibility requirements”) and
• not be excluded under any of the mandatory exclusions.

AFCA can also exercise its discretion to exclude a complaint if this is appropriate for any of a number of reasons.

The most common reason a complaint fell outside AFCA’s scope was because a financial service was not provided to the complainant by the financial firm (Rule B.2.1a)), with 2,414 (29%) complaints falling into this category. This may occur where the complainant incorrectly lodged against the wrong financial firm.

Sometimes, the complainant had a financial service provided, but not by the firm they selected. Of these, 139 (6%) were subsequently lodged against the correct financial firm.

The second most common category for exclusion was uninsured motor vehicle criteria not met (458). Under the Rules, the requirements for an uninsured motor vehicle complaint are that the complainant must not hold a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy; the claim must be for property damage to the uninsured vehicle caused by the driver of the insured vehicle; and the claim must be under another person’s motor vehicle insurance policy and must be a valid claim (Rule B.2.1(f)).

The third most common reason a complaint fell outside AFCA’s jurisdiction was the complainant was not generally eligible (317). This includes where a complainant does not have standing to bring a complaint to AFCA.

The most common reason complaints were outside the Rules under mandatory exclusions was complaints that were solely about the level of fee/premium/charge/interest rate charged by a financial firm (395).

This was followed by assessment of credit risk (325) and/or because the complaint had already been dealt with by another court/tribunal/scheme (258).

The top three reasons for AFCA exercising its discretion to exclude a complaint were:

• there was a more appropriate place to consider the complaint (566)
• within its general discretion to exclude (542)
• the complainant’s representative would not comply with the AFCA complaint process (275)

Complaints were also excluded when they involved representation or assistance by a paid representative, and AFCA considered the representative, to be engaging in inappropriate conduct that was not in the best interest of the complainant. A complaint was also excluded if it was not accompanied by information required by AFCA.

Next financial year, AFCA will commence a review of its Rules and Operational Guidelines in consultation with ASIC and a number of other stakeholders. Data insights about the types of complaints that fall outside AFCA’s jurisdiction will be used as part of this process to identify any further areas for improvement or refinement under the Rules and Operational Guidelines.

Top three reasons complaints were outside the Rules – eligibility not met and number of complaints

Reason	2018–19	2019–20	2020–21	2021–22
OTR A.4.1 Complainant not eligible – general	223	354	316	317
OTR B.4.3.1 (a) Outside six-year time limit	219	259	270	271
OTR A.4.2 FF Not a current member	249	291	195	218

Top three reasons complaints were outside the Rules – mandatory exclusions and number of complaints

Reason	2018–19	2019–20	2020–21	2021–22
OTR C.1.2 (a) Level of fee/premium/charge/interest rate	237	330	246	395
OTR C.1.3 (a) Assessment of credit risk	262	442	312	325
OTR C.1.4 (a) Exclusion – excluded GI policy	137	254	193	267

Top three reasons complaints were outside the Rules – discretionary exclusions and number of complaints

Reason	2018–19	2019–20	2020–21	2021–22
OTR B.2.1 (a) Financial service not provided	1,411	2,678	2,271	2,414
OTR C.2.2 (a) More appropriate place	309	518	401	566
OTR A.8.3 Rules assessment 1	N/A	N/A	254	959

 

¹ These complaints were within AFCA’s jurisdiction, however, we used a discretion to cease dealing with them.

Previous section - Legacy complaints

Next section - Systemic issues