Most submissions to the Senate committee review of ASIC's performance centred on loan application forms and the failure of ASIC and the EDR schemes to deal with what submitters believed was fraud.The Credit Ombudsman Service Ltd said in its submission that parties to a COSL complaint alleging fraud do not have access to the evidentiary mechanisms of the courts. COSL said it was limited in terms of its ability to gain information. It cannot, for example, subpoena witnesses. COSL said claims of fraud should be dealt with by a court.But the committee recommended that claims of fraud should be referred to ASIC. It said: "Complaints involving allegations of fraud are bouncing between agencies and no agency is taking responsibility for investigating these matters. ASIC, FOS and COSL should establish protocols to ensure that such allegations are not handed from one agency to another and then somehow abandoned in the process."On the matter of reporting systemic problems, the committee recommended that ASIC devote a section of its annual report to the work of the EDR schemes, accompanied by its own assessment of the systemic and significant issues raised, and any action taken."The EDR schemes are important early detectors [of poor lending practices] and they should be constantly looking for ways to strengthen this reporting regime," it said.The committee rejected the argument, put in a number of submissions, that funding EDR schemes with industry levies created a conflict of interest. "The funding arrangements for the EDR schemes are appropriate and should not in any way compromise their independence," it said.The committee reiterated the often-heard complaint that the EDR schemes are too slow in resolving complaints. FOS and COSL have acknowledged that they need to improve this part of their processes.