The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has accepted 12 recommendations made following an independent review of 30 of its determinations.

Among the recommendations from two senior legal experts are that AFCA “should monitor complaints promptly to identify clearly unmeritorious or hopeless claims” and “where a determination differs materially ... from a preliminary assessment, the determination should acknowledge the departure and briefly explain it”. 

The review also says the authority “may decide to assess whether non-compliance with its determinations is a prevalent or material problem”, and it should ensure it responds “to a financial firm’s non-compliance with its directions”.

AFCA engaged former Federal Court judge Julie Dodds-Streeton and barrister Ahmed Terzic to evaluate the 30 randomly selected recent complaints. It says many of the recommendations will be dealt with in existing programs of work.

The audit was commissioned to examine fairness and impartiality, and the reviewers have concluded AFCA’s outcomes are generally "fair in all the circumstances”.

They rate 27 of the 30 case files as excellent to good, and no file is rated poor. 

“The results of the review are positive, with the reviewers impressed with the overall quality and standard of decision writing, AFCA’s ability to deliver fair process and outcomes and our overall service delivery to the parties, including people living in vulnerable circumstances,” the authority said. 

AFCA staff were alert to parties’ special needs or vulnerabilities, and observed procedural fairness, the review says. And the teamwork and culture between decision-makers and case officers has been commended.

“A very ill complainant with an insurance claim in relation to her damaged residence was identified as requiring expedition and some temporary accommodation,” the review says. “AFCA appears to be consistent in offering this humane and facilitative approach to the people who need it.

“AFCA personnel were skilled at striking an appropriate balance, listening to complainants’ narratives, providing guidance on what elements of their story are relevant to a claim and providing the necessary framework, without becoming an advocate or making their case for them.”

The review says in one case involving an insurance dispute, “the decision-maker could have benefited from taking a more logical approach to the problem, thereby avoiding working an unfairness on one of the parties. 

“There is a reasonable argument that the decision-maker took into account an irrelevant consideration and gave undue weight to certain evidence that may have resulted in unfairness to the complainant. However, we stress that these cases represent a minority, and that on the whole we were favourably impressed by the logical, thoughtful and evidence-based approach adopted by decision-makers.”

See the full report here.