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.
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.
Comment: BFCSA members can see a potential conflict of interest in the COSL board.
Those experienced in going through COSL for external dispute resolution agree.
Is there a reluctance by COSL staff to deal effectively with "disputes" involving breaches of actual law by lenders?
Frankly COSL needs more "teeth" ie the capacity to take disciplinary action against lenders if they are to successfully manage disputes involving lenders and fraud. Lenders can and do use unfair tactics, especially with vulnerable borrowers inexperienced in the dispute resolution process.
It would be fairer to everybody if all home mortgage disputes under the NCCP (Consumer Law and Codes) were overseen by the one EDR: FOS
In reality Fraud is crime and EDRs only handle disputes.
This COSL issue does affect a lot of consumers, as COSL and FOS are the only ASIC approved EDR services in Australia.
http://www.cosl.com.au/board-of-directors
The COSL Board
Under COSL’s Constitution,...
Comment: Australian's put their lives and everything they value at risk everytime they deal with an Australian Bank or the Australian legal profession. Both are a disgrace "with notable execeptions". It is like Russian Roulette. The risks are too high, according to those whose eyes have been opened to the truth about Australian banking culture.
Our politicians, once again, "with notable exceptions" should also be ashamed of themselves. Not only did they not want to listen, not want to act but they systematically attempted to gag our political representatives who wanted to raise such issues in parliament. Those who participated in this disgusting conduct are a total disgrace. We will name and shame them if this conduct EVER happens again in OUR Houses of Parliament.
Stay away from the Australian Banking and Financial Sector until a committed and thorough investigation followed by a total overhaul of the regulatory systems and a...
"A Royal Commission into the Australian Banking Sector is our democratic right.
To deny us that right is truly unAustralian."
There are many strong arguments in favour of holding a Royal Commission into Banking with wide terms of reference.
One of the side effect of the Royal Commission is its capacity to bring the issues into every Australian home through the main stream media.
This in turn will generate far greater awareness of the serious anomalies and inherent risks within the Australian Financial Sector.
It may also answer the questions for so many Australians whose lives have been smashed by the deregulated "free market" Australian Financial Sector, directly and indirectly, including the big ones:
Why weren't we told?
How could this be allowed to happen in Australia?
Consumer protection isn't for just for the elderly - it benefits all Australians. We've been badly misled by those entrusted to protect us,...
The other day, as a matter of my own interest, I began to list incentives for Predatory Lending that are built into the Securitisation process. I finished it today, then decided to post it for anyone interested. I've made little change to my notes, so hope it makes sense. If anyone knows any other incentives, let's add them to the list.
We know that the banks wanted more securitisation profits. To achieve that they wanted more loans secured with mortgages. This lead to the 'Originate to Distribute' model. Enter Lo Doc and No Doc loans.
Incentives
The banks preferred to securitise at risk loans secured by mortgages, so created incentives for brokers to promote Lo Doc loans over traditional loans by making the Lo Doc loans more profitable for brokers.
The original mortgagee was NOT at risk if there was a failure to pay so didn't care how risky the...
FOS are unlikely to "see" systemic fraud. 1. They don't have "fraud" - courts have fraud. 2. They deal predominantly at the le