Debt collection guideline (96) for “collectors and creditors”

Sec.23 The role of independent external dispute resolution schemes


I visited ASIC Qld Offices last Wed (4 Dec) and spoke to Misconduct & Branch(analysts) Reporting who strongly inferred the "other teams" had right of way when it came time to seek an "enforceable undertaking" against ING DIRECT who have willfully contravened its own Banking Codes (clause 29) by pursuing Debt Collection Processes at the same time my FOS Dispute No.272192 is before the Financial Ombudsman Service(FOS), a sham organisation who purport to act in fairness and impartially when nothing could be further from the truth.

The two young "analysts" listened intently, took down notes (but not for show) and asked many relevant questions in a genuine effort to get at the heart of the matter over a 1.5hr period and apologized for having to conclude the conference, encouraged me to lodge the Complaint against the ING Bank and FOS (in brief) so as to get into the system, which in turn, would enable "P" to then appropriately follow up with a request for more details in that sequence.

Amongst many things, "P" confirmed, that FOS have failed their obligation as an EDR scheme in so far as not "shutting down" ING DIRECT's Debt Recovery Proceedings while the (FOS) scheme "considers the dispute" and in particular my allegations of wilful breach of FOS Rule (13.1) constituting serious misconduct (under FOS Rule 11.3) on the part of ING DIRECT warranting FOS to report ING DIRECT to ASIC to be disciplined. 

The material breach occurred in 2011 (covered up by FOS Legal Counsel) notwithstanding FOS Case Manager's (Nicole White) best endeavours to pursue on my behalf, confirmed as much in her letter dated 8 May, 2013, which pledged; "I confirm that I will investigate in dispute 272192, whether the FSP acted in error (during former FOS Dispute No. 248473) in issuing legal proceedings on 5 July, 2011...."

In the last week, FOS Legal Counsel "Mr FOS/XYZ" has wronged me, by failing to confirm a letter, which I sent to FOS on 10 Dec, 2012 during my current matter (272192) filed 6 Feb, 2012--- was ultimately "on-forwarded" to ING DIRECT [its legal representatives) consistent with FOS guidelines re its open "information exchange" policy between the FSP and the Complainant (visa versa) during the course of the FOS dispute.

FOS must confirm (or otherwise) whether or not the "info-exchange" took place, at which time in the affirmative, his Honour Judge Rackermann, made it crystal clear to my Legal Counsel, that in the event the Plaintiff was in receipt of such letter sent from me to FOS (10.12.12) ING DIRECT would be found to have misled the Court during an "ex-parte" Hearing on 27 Aug, 2013 -- the most gravest of abuse of court processes -- the book thrown at them effectively; and ...consequently the ill gotten Default Judgment (made on 18 Nov,2013) would be declared "irregular" and thrown out of Court.

BUT .. but FOS "turn a blind eye" to my request.. ensuring ongoing consumer in-equality and denial of natural justice.. 

It now appears imminent that I'll have to lodge an appeal (et al) and subpoena FOS records (et al) since they'll delay, as they do, any Right-of-Information application against the FOS and would be respond by dispensing consistent "frustration" and obfuscation all round. 

This is an EDR scheme in disarray; an absolute "disgrace" to consumers; and.... must be dismantled immediately... and replaced with a newly established "independently" run true External Resolution Scheme--- brought into the fray to sort out these banking mobsters running amok ---FOS people are getting truly angry-- it this, if allowed to fester----may come back to bite you yet.

Moreover, FOS have been informed of ING DIRECT's obligations under it (adopted) Banking Codes (clause 29) which states under its Banking Codes - Clause 29 "Debt collection" 

”We [ING DIRECT] and our collection agents... ...will comply with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s guideline "Debt Collection and the Trade Practices Act" dated June 1999 when collecting amounts due to us, and we will ensure that our representatives [such as; instructing solicitors, Gadens Lawyers] do likewise.”

Consequently, the conduct committed brazenly by the FOS Respondent ING DIRECT (its ‘dummy’ Plaintiff) is proscribed by the ACCC and ASIC regulatory guidelines known as “RG-96” which affirms (inter alia) under the heading; ASIC: REGULATORY GUIDE 96: - Debt collection guideline: for collectors and creditors [October 2005] Section 23[c] which clearly states--

"We urge creditors and collectors to ensure their systems and practices allow EDR in the debt collection area to work effectively. [and] In particular; ["RG96" as re-affirmed by "P" last Wed 4 Dec/13 of ASIC]:-

" ...collection activity relating to a dispute that has been referred to an EDR scheme must be suspended while the scheme considers the dispute—again, this is a requirement imposed on scheme members (including their agents)."

Referring to:- The Code Compliance Monitoring Committee (CCMC) which states---

" The CCMC’s role is to monitor Code subscribing Banks’ compliance under the Code of Banking Practice, investigate allegations that a Bank has breached its obligations under this Code and engage with stakeholders to achieve continuous improvement in banking practice and standards." 

How is monitoring you FOS? ASIC? ("its all a charade")... 
....Wake up FOS ... you are starting to resemble the very ugly face of a massive financial industry "cover-up"... myself and another member, shall be visiting upon ASIC Brisbane Head office again this week, so then there were two(2), and so the following week there maybe 4, then the next 8, and so forth 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 ............

Read the writing on the wall --- we're not backing down -- we will push back and get into your faces like you have never experienced in your sorry cushy 'little' careers... 

ING DIRECT a division of ING Bank (Aust)Ltd is bound by its 'Code of Banking Practice'. 

Following its publication in August 2003, the 'Code of Banking Practice' was adopted by a number of banks. In May 2004 the Code was modified by the Australian Bankers' Association, with the modifications relating primarily to the guarantee provisions of the Code. Many banks have also chosen to adopt the modified 2004 version of the Code. The ING Bank is one of these.

A bank is bound by the provisions of the Code from the date on which that bank publicly announces that it has adopted the Code. The ING Bank (Australia) Limited adopted the Code on 7th October 2003 and then adopted the modified Code on 15 June 2004.

The Code is a voluntary Code of Conduct that sets standards of good banking practice for banks to follow when dealing with individual and small business customers.“Voluntary” means that a bank can choose whether it wishes to adopt the Code. Once a bank adopts the Code, however, it is contractually bound by its obligations under the Code.

Under the Code, banks give a general commitment to act fairly and reasonably towards customers and guarantors in a consistent and ethical manner.

The Code also gives customers of banks that adopt the Code important legal rights, and confirms their existing rights in a number of areas.