External dispute resolution services must look for ways to speed up their processes and also assess whether they have staff with the right level of skills and experience. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission says there are a lot of complaints about the way EDR works, and the schemes need to "engage in dialogue" with their members.Earlier this week, ASIC released the results of a review of the jurisdiction of EDR schemes (reported in yesterday's edition). It noted that the submissions raised concerns about how EDR schemes handle credit complaints in general. "While these matters are outside the scope of this review, we encourage both COSL (Credit Ombudsman Service Ltd) and FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) to consider this feedback as part of their ongoing schedule for improvement," ASIC said.Industry and consumer submissions identified undue delays at EDR as the main area for improvement. Abacus reported delays of three to four months at FOS. One company, Australian Securities Ltd, reported that the EDR process could take six to 12 months longer than if the same matter were addressed in the Supreme Court.The Australian Financial Markets Association said delays could make it more difficult for lenders to realise their security. The Australian Finance Conference said this problem could be aggravated by consumers not making payments while the complaint was being addressed by an EDR service.FOS responded by saying that delays were caused by members who did not follow expedited processes.Some industry submissions recommended that ASIC introduce a maximum time limit for EDR schemes to handle debt-recovery legal proceedings complaints. After the expiry of the time-frame, scheme members would be free to pursue their debt recovery action in court.Others suggested that ASIC introduce more prescriptive maximum time-frames for interim steps in the process.However, ASIC said it would not introduce specific time-frames. It said: "This is because these time-frames may create disincentives for scheme members to promptly respond and co-operate with EDR scheme processes."A number of submissions raised concerns about complainants who lodge complaints at EDR to delay inevitable debt recovery enforcement proceedings. However, the Consumer Action Law Centre said there was little evidence of this kind of abuse.Submissions also suggested that EDR schemes should more appropriately and quickly identify and exclude those complaints that are outside their jurisdiction, especially cases where a court would be a more appropriate forum for hearing the complaint.ASIC agreed this was a good objective.Other submissions called for EDR schemes to carry out early stage "triage" to assess the full extent of a complaint and so avoid having new issues raised later on.