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!"

Lee Doyle

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

FOS Does It Again

Posted by on in Reserve Bank of Australia
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 3010
  • Print

I sent in a complaint to FOS about an issue that is unique to our situation, but which I believe was borne out of the Predatory Lending practices of the bank. FOS' response is that they 'cannot consider' our dispute.  However, the uniqueness of our situation shows that their response was really pretty much a cut and paste job.  I have had to write back and ask that they give my complaint due consideration, without presumption.

FOS made at least nine presumptions in their response.  It appears to me that they aren't even reading our complaints but just sending back fob off answers. 

To tell the truth, I don't expect they will give any more regard to this letter as they did my original complaint.  But I live in hope :).

Dear (FOS),

In all due respect, it is clear to me that you did not read and understand my complaint.   If you had done so, you have not have replied in the way you did. 
It appears that your response was pretty much a cut and paste job based on what seems to be a careless consideration of the facts.

Consider the following in light of your response:
1.  The issue has NOT been previously dealt with by a court, tribunal or other external dispute resolution scheme.
2.  You therefore are NOT being asked to 'overturn a decision of a court or go behind a decision obtained in another forum'.
3.  The fact that Macquarie Bank obtained a Supreme Court of Victoria judgment is NOT in dispute.
4.  NO judgment has ever been made on the issue, so you CAN consider the dispute.
5.  Bull dust to telling me you 'cannot consider any concerns' I may have about Macquarie Bank's conduct 'BEFORE (my emphasis) the date of judgment'.  No matter which way a judgment goes, it doesn't make wrong actions magically right.
6.  I am NOT asking you to 'consider any objection about the judgment itself and how it was obtained' - though these are serious issues that BFCSA and others are working on.
7.  Macquarie Bank have COMPLETED all legal proceedings, so 'once (y)our file is closed' Macquarie Bank will NOT be free to 'continue the legal proceedings' against us.
8.  The judgment has ALREADY been enforced, so there is no risk that 'once (y)our file is closed', Macquarie Bank Limited will be free to continue with .... enforcing the judgment obtained'.
9.  We have ALREADY been evicted, so I have absolutely no expectation that you would step in 'to stop a Sheriff from executing a court order for possession'.
It is clear from ALL the above, that you have NOT given my complaint due consideration, but treated it with contempt. 

Now, let's look at what my Complaint IS about.  I will keep it really simple.  Once you understand the below, re-read my original complaint in that light.
1. Macquarie Bank gave us a Lo-Doc loan in 2004 and took security based on the value of our land AND house.
2. When Macquarie Bank sold our property, they advertised and sold it for 'land value only' because they claimed our house was 'illegal'.  They also deducted a further approximately $50,000 off the offered price so 'the new owners could make it legal'.  No, they didn't tell the world they were doing this, but I have reliable sources that have informed me.
3. They made no attempt to enquire with us.  Such contact would have clarified the matter.

So:  If our house was 'illegal' when the bank sold it, then it was 'illegal' when they gave us the loan.  That means they EITHER
a. SHOULDN'T have given us the loan based on land AND house value in the first place
b. SHOULD have advertised and sold our property for it's full and 'fair' value. 
They can't justify BOTH actions.  It's like eating their cake and keeping it too.
For clarity, and so you don't miss the point:
    •    If the house WAS illegal, then we should never have been given that loan. 
    •    If the house WASN'T illegal, then it should have been advertised and sold at a 'fair price' as the law requires.

Please pay careful attention to this INDIVIDUAL matter and please don't reply with another cut and paste job.
My 'fair and reasonable resolution to the dispute' as stated in my original complaint, remains. 
Thankyou for your assistance in the matter.

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012

    Unfortunately, FOS are blatantly biased in favour of the BANKS. Especially Anna Neesham & Philip Field.
    In our case, we found one of the most shocking things about this is that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) -who are supposed to protect the public from illegal or unethical banking practices - has disturbingly decided that : even though the bank may have known that the documentation was false - THE BANK WAS ENTITLED TO RELY ON THAT FALSE DOCUMENTATION! The FOS are blatantly biased in favour of the Banks. They have ignored key documentary evidence & overlooked much of the fraudulent information. My wife and I even discussed the possibility of 2 of the FOS investigating officials being bribed, such was our level of disbelief at the way they were constantly trying to justify the Bank's actions! At one stage, they stated that they knew that the income details had been falsified as we were receiving Family Assistance so therefore could not have been earning the income stated on the loan application, and were advising that the Bank should enter into a settlement conference, and were waiting for the Bank to respond. The next letter we had from the ombudsman was the final decision - in favour of the bank! Even more sinister the ombudsman also put in a clause stating that : if we accept the decision that we were to agree not to take any further action against the bank! This is how they try to protect the Banks, they are certainly not protecting the public against this fraud.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Wednesday, 29 August 2012

    Disappointed in FOS

    Wayne, I am extremely disappointed to about Fos decision. We are awaiting our decision.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012

    Yep those fossils of FOS are hopelessly conflicted but you still do have to go through the motions just to prove that you have done all you can. Great system we have - NOT!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012

    THANKS FOR YOUR POST SUSAN. Hopefully the "minders" reading our bfcsa blogs will pass this on to the powers that be. WE ALL HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THEIR GAMES.. We want our lives back!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012

    Wayne - are you taking this to the media. The public at large needs to know of this. That is disguisting. I hope you did not agree. Can I ask - which bank?

    Editor: Their slogan was Which Bank? CBA of course!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012


  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012

    My bank manager quite often boasted how he was taken to FOS a few times - but always won. He acted like he was invincible!! He even mentioned about a person who has taken it to FOS three times against him and how he has won all three.. Thinking about it - you have to really question that one and why?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 28 August 2012

    Hi JJ. YES - I am taking it to the media. I have already been in touch with some media, mainly Stephen Long of ABC 7.30 Report and also Anthony Klan of The Australian Newspaper, and they are currently doing some stories on this. Everybody, please feel free to forward this onto any other journalists or media that you can think of.

Leave your comment

Guest Friday, 14 August 2020