Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook

facebook3           facebook2 


What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.


Articles View Hits

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: Demand the Service Calculator from FOS and COSL

Posted by on in BANKSTERS
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2510
  • Print

The SERVICE CALCULATOR FORM was attached to the  LAF and because you the client were asked to sign a document to state you had read and understood everything.  For this reasons all documents attached to the LAF must be discoverable in order to affect a quiet settlement.  You have a right to know what truly occurred to lead to the obvious imprudent lend.

FOS is a  dispute process and part of the dispute process is the bank asking you for all current financial details – which is utterly irrelevant.

The dispute is over the initial loan approval and therefore the bank cannot suggest they will not hand them over.

The Broker was under bank instructions to FAX a number of documents as a Loan Package and emails that we have received show banks clearly had a rule: “the service calculator form (prepared by the Broker) must be attached to the loan application or your deal will not be processed.”

This was clearly a standard industry practice.

In addition:

The Brokers dealt direct with the bank via communication between the loans officers, credit assessors and BDM’s.

It was standard industry practice to not phone the client to verify income.

It was standard industry practice for three pages to be presented to the client and not 11 pages.

It was standard industry practice for the Broker to then take the three pages back to the office and add all other forms and details onto the application without the borrower’s authority or knowledge.

It was standard industry practice for the Broker to collect the Identification personal documentation from the client, as a specific statutory obligation under the Anti Money and Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 to accommodate the 100 points ID requirement .  Clearly for the loan to proceed to approval stage, the Identification Verification Declaration signed by the Broker as having collected the documents required, is a specific passing of a statutory obligation owed by the bank in terms of compliance, was passed on from Bank to Broker to achieve their aims.

The Broker was clearly an AGENT OF THE BANK to affect this particular task.  Without this agency commitment, the loan could not have been processed.  The Agency activity is therefore established.

It was standard industry practice to for Banks to tell the Broker that these documents must “go to the bank for approval, and the customer cannot have a copy.”

It was standard industry practice for Banks to argue that the databases and all matter relating to the client were to be handed over by the Broker to the Bank if they left, as they contained information protected by the Privacy Act 1988.  (see attached letter RAMS refers to their clients as their customers will appear in next blog)

It was standard industry practice for the Banks to tell the Broker NOT TO send the original copy to the Bank and to “destroy the original LAF” after approval as a requirement of the Privacy Act 1988 as “it contains personal financial details.”

It was standard industry practice for white-out to be used on the faxed copy and therefore the faxed copy is utterly relevant to the claim as the basis of maladministration in lending is the improper handling and assessment of the loan being approved to people who were not in a position to repay the funds other than by the use of BUFFER MONIES whereby clients were paying the payments (as if “affordable”) with the banks own funds.

The lack of regard for “affordability” from income has led to countless reports on “asset-lending” and a corresponding number of denials from lenders.

Let the Banks and the EDR’s know that:

If the Bank refuses to hand over the complete Loan Application Form and all attachments including the Broker delivered Serviceability Calculator Form, then BFCSA will lodge a complaint against the bank to the Enquiries Officer: Office of the Australian Information Commissioner  to  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>



Denise L Brailey


President of BFCSA (Inc)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 07 December 2012

    Yes, Just today I was asked by FOS to fill out a new SOFP Statement of Financial Position. I questioned this, and was told they need it to determine how muc I can pay for settlement. I have declined, saying the problem lies with the original statement that was falsified behind my back, after I had submitted my docs...

    We have to stop being gullible and question every request, to determine if there is a valid reason to do it...

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 10 December 2012

    Hi STM. FOS also asked us to fill out a Statement of Financial Position - as it would have been at the time of our loan in 2005 - which we did - and it very clearly showed that we certainly could NOT afford the repayments at the time of the loan - as I was unemployed, with NO INCOME!
    FOS still gave the decision in favour of the bank. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 07 December 2012

    I agree totally. Why should victims of loan application fraud have to disclose their financial position. We are treated as if we are the criminals. Our financial position is none of their business. They are too busy investigatiing us victims instead of the banks. We have been through that and if we knew then what we know now we would have questioned it as well. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. STICK TO YOUR GUNS STM.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 07 December 2012

    How senior (experienced) are these EDR case managers assigned to mediate for us ? . This is very serious stuff -accusing banksters of imprudent lending, maladministration and fraud. Our case managers take over our cases from each other. The letters of response are generic. What qualifications do they have to mediate on such important matters. I don't want a lackey handling my case. We deserve top service, professional advice and to be taken seriously. We are not statistics, we are real and this is possibly the biggest fight of our lives.. and we are seeking justice for future generations.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 07 December 2012

    Great questions to be asking

    Even if they are "qualified", how long have they been in those positions?
    Too long & they become similar to those other desensitised red-tape brigades of Centrelink & the other federal agencies that are "supposed" to be core government services.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 07 December 2012

    FOS? Go Figure???

    Yes Winner, I'll hold off to allow Denise review --but I spent today documenting a sham Fraud/Forgery/Perverting the Course of Justice, committed by FOS Counsel & Case Officer.

    .a taste...between 5 Oct, 2011 (the telephone conciliation conference between myself & Pioneer) and 7 Oct. 2011, when FOS correspondence was sent, the FOS Case Officer unilaterally decided I no longer lodged a complaint against Pioneer Mortgages Limited Case No. YYYY and thru fraud by conversion nominated ING Bank (Australia) Limited as purported FOS Dispute Respondent Case No. YYYY (but of course same FOS Dispute file no.) --all FOS letters prior to 7 Oct, 2011 correctly state Pioneer as the FOS Dispute Respondent, but on 7 Oct it didn't suit them any more....of course it's simply impossible to change "jockeys" cancel Pioneer and pretend the FOS Respondent is spuriously ING, who at that time were not the subject of any FOS Dispute (but currently are FOS Dispute Respondent) -- there is a big motive to corrupt this FOS File, and it will hit the FOS Ombudsman desk, AFP, CIB sure enough.

    ...the FOS Legal Counsel, decided to continue the sham (and more revisionist activities, same as white out the bank$ters use) and of course makes no mention of former FOS Dispute Respondent Pioneer (dummy trustee)in his review of that "closed" Pioneer file(2011), by stating twice that my complaint was lodged 5 July, 2011 --to coincide with Pioneer filing Court Action (on % July 2011), but my (former) complaint was lodged 20 June, 2011 as evidenced by my Australia Post FAX (reduced cover page image et al) see Pioneer wilfully breached FOS Rule 13.1 a) (i) in their FOS Terms of Reference(ING instigated), which states FOS Respondent must not start court action whilst the FOS Dispute file "remains open"'s called a "cover-up", but never counted on my record keeping (FAX Transmission Report)

    Why does FOS conspire with ING to change the FOS Dispute Respondent name from Pioneer to ING, because ING are spuriously asserting to FOS (yes, FOS complicit), that ING have been before FOS in this matter before, last year (not Pioneer), and reached a settlement with the complainant under FOS "jurisdiction", so therefore ING say FOS rule 13.2 is operational (enlivened) which says we can commence legals proceedings as per a side agreement(note outside FOS jurisdiction), notwithstanding being the subject of a current fraud/maladministration FOS Dispute No. other words we can enjoy an FOS exemption --and sue the ass of him, because we say(ING) we have already settled "a previous FOS dispute" --relating to this same matter...all lies..all fraudulent, FOS complicit.

    1. Letter FOS to Complainant -dated 2 September, 2011 signed off by Alycia James - Case Manager (pages 1 & 2)

    >>>NOTE: Titled: Dispute with "Pioneer Mortgages Ltd" ~ Case number XXXXX
    Conciliation Conference ~ set down for Wednesday, 5 October, 2011

    Page 1: “ I refer to your dispute with Pioneer Mortgages Ltd....As discussed we will conduct a compulsory telephone conciliation conference with the aim of resolving the dispute....During the conciliation conference, you will be able to speak directly to both Pioneer Mortgages Ltd and the conciliator at the same time... “

    Page 2: “ Please note that if you don not attend the telephone conference, we will close our file. ..once our file is closed. ..(it) will only be re-opened in exceptional circumstances. “

    Letter FOS to Complainant/Pearson dated 7 Oct, 2011 signed off by Alycia James - Case Manager (pages 1 & 2) >>>note: cc. ING Bank (Australia) Limited only.

    >>> NOTE: Titled: Dispute with "ING Bank (Australia) Limited" ~ Case number 248473

    Page 1. “ I refer to your dispute with 'ING'(NO it's Pioneer silly) and the telephone conference held on 5 October, 2011. ..At the conciliation conference you and ING Bank (Australia) Limited (NO it's Pioneer silly) reached on an in-principal agreement to the resolve the dispute. I enclose a written agreement detailing the terms of settlement. ..I am satisfied. Next steps: Please sign your acceptance of the agreement and return it to ING Bank (Australia) Limited. As the agreement is full & final settlement of your dispute. ..If you do not. ..there is no justification for the further consideration of the dispute by this office, and our file will be closed. ..(and) ING Bank (Australia) Limited will be entitled to take steps to recommence the legal proceedings against you immediately. “ (Pioneer simply vanished????)

    7. Letter FOS to Complainant/Pearson dated 8 May, 2012 signed off by Geoff Bant - FOS Legal Counsel (pages 4 only).

    Titled: Dispute with ING Bank (Australia) Limited ~ Case number XXXX

    Page 1. “ I refer to your dispute with ING Bank (Australia) Limited (ING)(No it's Pioneer silly). ..Your file has been provided for me to review. .. Previous dispute YYYY (notably FOS counsel omits to insert Pioneer Mortgages Limited). ..Your lodged a dispute at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in relation to financial difficulty on 5 July, 2011. “(spurious Mr FOS Counsel, it's 20 June,2011 silly)

    “a telephone conciliation conference was facilitated by FOS on 5 October, 2011 between you and ING (No it's Pioneer silly) at which you reached an in-principal agreement to the dispute” {spurious)

    The Applicant to the previous FOS dispute number YYYY, asserts Pioneer Mortgages Limited ACN 095 875 735 in it’s capacity of FOS Respondent, agreed during the Conference to-- “discontinue the whole of the claim against the First Defendant”; and in return the Complainant agreed to withdraw the FOS Dispute number YYYY against Pioneer Mortgages Limited ACN 095 875 735 during the FOS arranged Conference; --notwithstanding the clearly defined “exceptional circumstances of;
    1.being present at the phone Conference without the benefit of legal representation; and
    2.the conference being conducted under “false pretenses” (refer to above); and
    3.suffering a medically diagnosed condition known to FOS (medical certificates furnished); and
    4.the Applicant agreeing to attending same in goodfaith, at all material times; and
    5.holding a reasonable belief that the Applicant was in fact discussing the outstanding FSP issues directly with Pioneer Mortgages Limited (refer to above); and
    6.being improperly subjected to what constitutes “illegimate duress” in regard the revelation that Pioneer had commenced legal proceedings after the FOS file opened (refer to above), later understood to be a “wilful breach” of FOS Terms of Reference Section E, 13.1 a) (i): and all material times any (albeit tainted) agreement reached during the Conference was absolutely limited to Pioneer Mortgages Limited and the Complainant; and
    8.FOS clearly failed to exercise impartiality and/or duty of care owed to the Complainant at all material times, and constitutes “badfaith” towards the Complainant; and
    9.the Complainant alleges that FOS is in fact committing a fraud & forgery by altering the FOS complaint status against Pioneer on 7 Oct, 2011 and unilaterally substituting ING Bank (Australia) Limited on same date and by spuriously asserting from that date on, ING was the “true party” the subject to FOS Dispute number YYYY; and
    10.FOS Counsel, is attempting to pervert the course of justice by altering the FOS Complainant’s true & correct “lodging date” pertaining to FOS Dispute YYYY by substituting the date of 5 July, 2011 in lieu of the true & correct “lodging date” of 20 June, 2011 (evidenced by Post Office successful transmission - Fax Send Report); and
    denial of natural justice including amongst other things, failing to forward FOS correspondence via email as requested via email numerous times, notwithstanding FOS automated email confirmation forwarded as receipt proof of these numerous requests “on FOS file”, subsequent to, and as directed by your front line staff over the phone

    The above alleged gross misconduct clearly demonstrates the FOS Counsel’s response is contrived and the Applicant (former) and current repudiates Counsel’s statement --referring to page 3, which states;

    “ Based on all the information, we are satisfied from our dealings with you during 2011, and in particular at the time of the conciliation conference, that you understood the nature of the discussion.. ..I have provided a copy of this letter to "ING" so it is aware of our approach.”

    ING given "green light" to commence legal proceedings by corrupt FOS Counsel aided & abetted by FOS Case Officers --complicit with ING....go figure????

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 10 December 2012

    Good one Andy. We got our first decision by FOS (in favour of the bank) by case manager/lawyer Anna Neesham.
    In her letter she also wrote that if we accepted her decision "..that we agree to take no further action against the CBA."
    Why would a FOS case manager put that clause into her decision? Mmmmmmmmm.

Leave your comment

Guest Monday, 30 November 2020