Delays in acting on instructions, inappropriate debt collection practices, errors in credit reports and errors in the calculation of minimum loan repayments featured among the systemic issues the Australian Financial Complaints Authority investigated during the first half of the year. AFCA’s latest Systemic Issues Insights Report details 30 systemic issues in banking and finance during the six months, nine in life insurance, seven in general insurance, seven in superannuation and two in investments and advice. A systemic issue is one that affects people other than the complainant. In many cases the other people affected may not know there is a problem. AFCA said the matters it investigated during the period resulted in remediation to 145,480 people. In one case a financial firm was failing to execute customer requests to secure fixed rate terms in a timely manner. This meant higher fixed rates were applied to home loans. After AFCA raised the issue, the firm identified a process deficiency. It made changes to its process and retrained staff. It returned overcharged interest. Another firm was incorrectly providing credit reporting information on credit files where the customer had been impacted by fraud. It was failing to confirm that the credit bureau removed incorrect information once the fraud was identified. In another case involving credit reporting, the firm was reporting defaults without waiting the required 14 days after declining a request for financial hardship assistance. The Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code says financial firms should not report a default within 14 days of a decision to decline hardship assistance. And in another, a firm was failing to update liability information held by credit reporting bureaus when a credit facility had been repaid or otherwise extinguished. This meant the repayment history reports were lodged after the contract had ended. The fault affected 2500 customers. Investigation of these cases uncovered “inadequate controls”, “ineffective processes”, “a gap in reporting logic” and “system limitations”. In a case involving debt collection, the firm was sending default and demand notices to customers who were complying with repayment arrangements. Many of the affected customers had hardship arrangements. When it investigated, the firm found its program for handling hardship payment arrangements had gaps. It also found there was insufficient monitoring. In another debt collection case, the firm was making inappropriate contact with third parties about debtors, even when the third parties asked not to be contacted. In response to AFCA’s investigation, the firm developed internal guidelines regarding contact with third parties. In a case involving miscalculation of loan repayments, the firm was not properly recalculating monthly repayments or loan term end dates when there had been a period of non-payment. The loan management system had not recalculated the customers’ required repayments or extended the loan term to account for periods of non or part-payment. The firm identified the problem and implemented a fix. The fix did not work and the complaints to AFCA kept coming. After finally resolving the problem, the firm returned more than A$80,000 in interest and fees to 545 impacted accounts.