Inquiries

2017

Direct Debit Follow Up Own Motion Inquiry – an inquiry into compliance with section D20.1 of the Code to stop a direct debit arrangement linked to a member’s transaction account upon the member’s request – and to do so promptly, September 2017 (PDF, 438KB, 22 pages)

This inquiry follows two previous Committee inquiries dealing with the same Code obligation conducted in 2010 and 2012. Under section D20.1, an institution is required to stop a direct debit arrangement linked to a member’s transaction account upon the member’s request – and to do so promptly.

This inquiry developed a better understanding of how subscribing institutions have adopted the recommendations following the Committee’s 2012 inquiry and whether compliance in this area has improved.

This inquiry confirmed that, while there appears to have been some improvement, compliance with section D20.1 remains patchy and only a minority of subscribing institutions are achieving best practice standards. As a result of the findings of this inquiry, the Committee has made six recommendations for improvements to policy and procedures, customer information and compliance monitoring.

Some of the key findings include:

  • Subscribing institutions appear to have a range of procedural approaches to direct debit cancellation in place. While only a minority of institutions measure processing times for direct debit cancellation requests, all stated that these cancellations are processed promptly and typically on the same day.
  • An audit of 17 large institutions’ website information indicated that there are still problems with the written advice provided to customers online. One third of the institutions included in the audit still used wording that was either unclear or, in one case, incorrect and non-compliant. These results suggest no improvement since 2012.
  • Most institutions are lagging behind best practice with regard to the availability and accessibility of online information about direct debit cancellation. Some institutions do not provide such information and, where they do, it is rarely easily discoverable via keyword searches.
  • 52% of institutions have conducted a compliance review using the Committee’s 2012 Compliance Checklist. For most of these institutions, the review was a valuable process that highlighted compliance problems or best practice improvements to be made.

Community Engagement Own Motion Inquiry – an inquiry into Key Promise 9 of the Code which reflects the customer owned banking sector’s commitment to serving both its communities and its customers, January 2017 (PDF, 491KB, 23 pages)

This inquiry developed a better understanding of how institutions manage this obligation, the identification and promotion of good business practices for engaging with communities and the assessment of the effectiveness of institutions’ impact on the wider community. It benchmarks current industry practice and makes recommendations for good industry practice based on the data collected.

The inquiry confirmed that the customer owned banking sector is community focused, reflecting its history and the culture and frameworks that underpin its dealing with customers.

Some of the key findings include:

  1. Many institutions reported that they engage with over 100 different community groups on an annual and ongoing basis.
  2. Over 50% of institutions engage with communities on a weekly or monthly basis.
  3. 73% of institutions spent more than $20,000 on community engagement activities including 19% of the largest institutions that spent over $500,000 during the 2014-15 period.
  4. Philanthropic or voluntary community engagement, where the engagement does not provide direct benefit to the institution is wide-spread.
  5. Community engagement brings benefits to both communities and institutions – increasing community trust and cohesion.

2014

Financial Difficulty Own Motion Inquiry – Examining Customer Owned Banking Institutions’ compliance with section 24 of the Customer Owned Banking Code of Practice: “If you are in financial difficulty”, December 2014 (PDF, 527 KB, 28 pages)

This inquiry examined whether customer owned banking institutions are meeting their obligations to help their customers in financial difficulty. We found that

  • Code Subscribers are willing to work with their customers to help them with their financial difficulties.
  • Most are meeting their training commitments and monitoring compliance with their Code obligations.
  • More than two thirds of financial counsellors agreed that on balance Code Subscribers’ financial hardship arrangements sometimes result in fair, reasonable and appropriate outcomes for their clients.

We recommended that Code Subscribers review their processes to ensure that the individual circumstances of all customers in financial difficulty are considered and that repayment arrangements are tailored to meet the individual’s situation.

2012

Review of Mutuals’ Compliance with their Code Training Obligations (in relation to Key Promises 5 and 10, and Part E, Section 2 of the Code), September 2012, (PDF, 309 KB, 23 pages)

This inquiry examined whether customer owned banks are complying with their Code obligations to adequately train staff, agents and representatives in the Code’s requirements.

We found that while most Code Subscribers have embedded Code training in their learning and development programs, the training content, method and frequency vary depending on the Code Subscriber’s size.

We also found that some Code Subscribers need to improve their monitoring and supervision frameworks to ensure that their staff apply Code obligations in daily operations.

Mutual Banking Code of Practice: Stopping a Direct Debit Arrangement, June 2012, (PDF, 290 KB, 20 pages)

This inquiry examined compliance with Section 20.1 of the Code (2007 version). This section requires Code Subscribers to stop or cancel a direct debit facility linked to a member’s transaction account promptly on request by that member.

Some 70% of disclosure documents we reviewed provided correct information about the cancellation process to members, in line with Code obligations. However, our shadow shopping exercise showed no change or improvement in the verbal advice provided by Code Subscribers since our previous inquiry in 2011.

Archive

See our archive for inquiry reports published before 2012.

Back to the top