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: What is wrong with FOS? It receives $5000 to look at Dudley's case. Then it says bugger off

  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2728
  • Print

This is what is WRONG WITH FOS.  Its a Bank Job Con @ $5000 thank you fee from CBA to FOS.  Nice one fellas.

1.  FOS trains its staff to ignore the breaches of the Bankers Code of Conduct, particularly with respect to s25 and AFFORDABILITY.  That's a crime in suggesting its on the side of the victim.  Below is a stock standard answer of "welcome to FOS!"

Please send this to JOE HOCKEY!!!

2.  The rules are clear FOS Terms of Reference say there is statute of SIX YEAR Limitation, yet the true six year period starts WHEN YOU KNEW of the fraud!!!!  ie AWARENESS.  There is fraud on every loan, tweaked by Bank Insiders.  Dudley's loan was started in 2004.  He learned of the FRAUD by contacting BFCSA as a member and then knew where to look.  FOS did not suggest you do that.  FOS then say "bugger off" as we will not look at 2004 loan...the pivot point and start of the loan.... nor loan top up suggested by bank a couple of years later, (more lovely fees lumbered onto this vulnerable man).  WE can only look at buffer number three.  Buffers were to HIDE the FRAUD and keep them one removed.

IN the above case, Dudley can expect : "yes Maladministration in Lending (the bleedin' obvious), BUT we will let the other two bankers off the hook and CBA can cut a deal and allow say a $50k discount off the loan!!!!"  Banks win, Customer loses his home and ALL BANKS PROFITED FROM THE INITIAL FRAUD

In fact the Cartel can do a whip around and pay for the $50k out of petty cash.  The home will be sold and bank will go after poor ole Dudley for the balance of the loss as the property market has dropped to 2007 prices, according to members all states (ah yes the real estate gurus lie all the time)

CBA is a mile in front with the $200k , plus default fees that the BANK STRATEGIES CAUSED in approving an UNAFFORDABLE LOAN, masked in fraud, dressed in Maladministration in Lending.  The Commonwealth Bank and Narev would ensure more fees will be added on to the loan statement and a DEBT FOR LIFE PLAN

Now SUPPOSING all three loans were post 2007.  Then FOS would have said our Limits for compensation are set at $280,000 (10 years ago).  Average loans are $600,000 in debt so too bad for the Dudley's of this world.  THEN FOS would do its same $5000 bank biased investigation and say OK YES Maladmin but Dudley you assisted in this Crime!!!!  Really Mr Ombudsman?  And how do we work that one out?  Victim Dudley, only applied for the imprudent loan.  Its the IMPRUDENT GREEDY Banksters at CBA that approved the TOXIC loan!

Ombudsman will then say: "Yes but bank lawyers (usually The Hounds of Gates of Hell Gadens) tell us: "we pay FOS, so we say Dudley 50% liable for "the conduct.  We suggest "to be fair" that compensation be reduced 50% to $140,000."  But that means the victim Dudley still left with Bank Hounds after the shortfall of $460,000.  How is that fair?????????????????????  And on the crime scene favour of the Banks.

Believe it or Not?  Then read this doozy of a FOS letter....then read between the lines and you can see all the above heading straight for the Target Dudley


I am investigating your dispute with CBA (the FSP).  You are referred to as ‘the Applicant’ in this letter.


Please read this letter carefully as it sets out:

·                my understanding of the dispute

·                the issues I will consider in my investigation, and

·                further information you need to provide.


I will issue my Recommendation when I have all of the necessary information.


Background information


In or about December 2005, the Applicant applied for a loan of about $350,000 for investment purposes (Loan 1).  The FSP approved the application as a low doc loan.  In or about August 2007, the Applicant applied for a further loan of about $430,000 for investment purposes (Loan 2). The FSP approved the loan as low doc loan.  In or about August 2008, the Applicant applied for a loan of $780,000 to refinance the Loan 1 and Loan 2 (Approximately $655,000) and to obtain further funds for investment of about $125,000 (Loan 3).  I have referred to Loan 1, Loan 2 and Loan 3, collectively as (the Loans)   The Loans were secured by a mortgage over the Applicant’s home farm at Glenview.


The Applicant claims that he could not afford Loan 1, let alone Loan 2 and Loan 3.


The Loan 3 remains on foot and has been out of order since 5 March 2013.   Interest and charges are accruing on the Loan which was $799,288.27 in arrears in November 2013.  



The dispute


The Applicant says:


1.     He did not want the Loans. He only took them out because the FSP encouraged him to do so;


2.     The FSP acted irresponsibly when it provided the Loan.  It engaged in inappropriate lending practice given:

·         He could not afford the Loans ‘from day 1’. 

·         The FSP repeatedly recommended he take out the Loans, telling him he could repay them;

·         He did not fill in the loan application form for  Loan 1;

·         The FSP falsified his income on the loan application for the Loan 1 after he signed it.  The application specified his income was $85,000 but it was less than $70,000;

·         The loan application for the Loan 1 overstated the value of his assets; and

·         The FSP could not have properly assessed his ability to pay the Loans.  It must not have verified his financial position as basic enquiries would have shown his income was overstated and he could not afford the Loans.

3.         The FSP should:


·         Restore him to the financial position he was in before he took out the Loans; and


·         Refund all interest, fees and charges paid on the Loans


In response, CBA says:

1.     It did not act irresponsibly when it provided the Loan 3 given:

·      The loan application indicated the Applicant could afford Loan 3 as the Applicant declared his income was $300,000.  It was entitled to rely on this declaration of evidence of the Applicant’s income;

·      Its lender completed the application form for the Loan 3 with the Applicant who signed the declaration.  Its lender completed the Declaration for the Loan which the Applicant then signed;

·      It properly assessed his ability to pay the Loan 3.  The application was checked by two different operators in its Home Loan Decisioning Cell on 5 and 9 August 2008.  It was further checked on 8 September 2008.

2.     It will not:


a)       Restore the Applicant to the financial position he was in before he took out the Loans or


b)       Refund all interest, fees and charges paid on the Loans


Issues in dispute


It appears the issues I need to investigate include:

1.               Whether the FSP’s decision to provide the Loan 3 was appropriate.

2.               If not, has the Applicant incurred a loss for which the FSP should compensate him?

3.               What is an appropriate solution to this dispute?


Additional Matters


The Applicant’s dispute is about the Loans. The Applicant’s allegations are not loan-specific, but it seems that most of his allegations relate to Loan 1 rather than Loan 2 & Loan 3.


Loan 1 and Loan 2 were provided more than 6 years before the dispute was lodged with FOS on 10 October 2013.  Accordingly, they fall outside the time limit provided by FOS’ Terms of Reference and disputes about these loans cannot be considered in this forum.


Loan 3 was provided just over 5 years before the dispute was lodged with FOS, which means we can consider it. 


Loan 3 refinanced Loan 1 and Loan 2. This means that if the FSP did inappropriately lend at the time it provided Loan 1 and Loan 2, Loan 3 may be a result of the previous inappropriate lending.  Accordingly, all three of the Applicant’s loans with the FSP are reviewable in this process.  Therefore, I will review Loan 1 and Loan 2 to determine if they amounted to inappropriate lending.


It is important that the Applicant understands that any decision FOS may make in resolution of this dispute will apply only to Loan 3.  This means that even if I find the FSP inappropriately lent Loan 1 and Loan 2, I cannot make any award in relation to those loans.  Any award which may be made in this dispute will be confined to Loan 3 only.


What you need to do now


To help me consider the dispute, please provide the following information:

1.               Confirmation that my understanding of the dispute is correct.  If it is not, please clarify the issues.

2.               What was your purpose for applying for the loans?

3.               Provide details of how you spent the loan monies, particularly any large purchases you may have made.   Please provide dates and amounts you spent, to the best of your recollections.

4.               Did you invest any of the Loan funds?  If so please provide details of those investments. 

5.               Please provide details on any investments or deposits you may hold with other Financial Services Providers.

6.               Please clarify what allegations you are making in relation to each loan.  You say that you did not complete the Application for Loan 1 and the FSP falsified the income information. Please confirmation that the allegations made in relation to the loan application refer to Loan 1 only and not Loan 2 & Loan 3.     

7.               At the time you applied for Loan 2 & Loan 3 you stated that your income was $300,000 per annum.  Why do you now say that you could not afford the loan at the time of your application? Complete copies of tax returns for the financial years ending 30 June 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.  

8.               Provide copies of your business financial statements and tax returns for the same period. 

9.               Did you have any other liabilities when you took out the Loans, including any loans, leases or hire purchases or credit cards?  If so please provide details of the amount owed and when you took out the loan.   

10.            What is your proposal for repaying the Loan?  If your financial position has changed since completing FOS’ Statement of Financial Position on 8 January 2014 please complete another statement (available from our website).

11.            You advised that you intend to sell one of your farms.  Is the property still on the market?  What is the expected sale price of that property?

12.            Any other information you wish me to consider.


Please provide the requested information by 1 October 2014.


What happens if you do not provide the information



If you do not provide the information by the stated date, I may proceed to consider the dispute on the basis of the material on our file. This means that the decision may be less favourable to you. Alternatively, I may not be able to progress the dispute which means I will close our file.  

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • Duped
    Duped Monday, 22 September 2014


    Bloody pathetic isn't it

  • Aries
    Aries Monday, 22 September 2014

    Same old garbage from the Ombudsman, sounds much like mine.
    I was lucky enough to have my accountant help me, or i would have been done like a dinner with
    all the legal 24 pages to sift through. Sold all properties except last one. Ombudsman stated if i agreed with
    their determination than i hand in keys to bank for last property and they will sell it and debt will be wiped no
    matter what price it's sold for. BUT, i still have a debt of $270k on a house i had owned mortgage free for 30 years.
    Fos would not look any loans prior to Sept. 2006 My loans were from 2002- 2009. Statute of limitations according to them. I joined with BFCSA in Sept 2012. If loan was one month out of their date....too bad! that's their stinking attitude.

    Reply Cancel
  • NABbed Nanna
    NABbed Nanna Monday, 22 September 2014

    FOS need a good shaking. The employees are not worth a pinch of Nanny goats s..t. How can these FOS employees sleep at night.? I cannot imagine having to carry that guilt around with me. How sick. Innocent people losing their homes because of the fraudulent banks and their dishonest and immoral FOS buddies.

    Reply Cancel
  • kddeed
    kddeed Tuesday, 23 September 2014

    Geez, makes you wonder whether It was even worth lodging a complaint with FOS if people like Dudley don't get anywhere with them. Maybe FOS & the BANKSTERS think we'll all burn out & pull the pin before they make a judgement

    Reply Cancel

Leave your comment

Guest Saturday, 05 December 2020