The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's report on the consumer leasing market, published in September, has come under fire in submissions to the Review of Small Amount Credit Contract Laws, with the leasing industry claiming that its limited scope led to conclusions that were not reflective of the market.ASIC found that consumers generally pay significantly more than the retail price of the goods and are charged more than a lender is permitted to charge under a small amount credit contract. Currently there are maximum cost caps on small amount credit contracts but not on consumer leases. ASIC said reforms "could be considered" to address conduct by lessors in charging unreasonably high costs.One of the questions for the SACC review panel is whether the provisions applying to SACCs should be extended to comparable consumer leases.ASIC's report was based on its own investigations as well as the collection of price data by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.The Australian Finance Conference, whose members include consumer leasing companies, said the number of lessors ASIC surveyed amounted to no more than one per cent of the consumer leasing market. "ASIC's Report 447, Cost of Consumer Leases for Household Goods, is flawed and inappropriate to apply in determining policy," AFC said.It said ASIC's cost comparisons did not take into account the differences between leases and credit. For example rentals must include GST and are likely to include services beyond rental, such as servicing, installation, insurance, repair and replacement.Thorn Group, which owns Radio Rentals, said RMIT surveyed costs charged by nine lessors across 20 categories of household goods and did a targeted review of 69 leases of two lessors.  The two lessors operate primarily in regional Australia.Thorn said the sample was not reflective of the market and was insufficient to determine industry pricing.The Consumer Household Equipment Rental Providers Association said ASIC had ignored its industry code of conduct, which was adhered to by its 40 members.The CHERPA submission said: "The opportunity for an at-risk consumer to get into difficulty under a consumer lease is limited because under the CHERPA Industry Code it is mandatory for all members to accept return of goods without any charges where a consumer shows that they are experiencing financial hardship."The association said its code could be extended to all consumer lessors.All the submissions from the consumer leasing sector argued that SACCs and consumer leases should not be considered as comparable products.Thorn said: "Consumer leases and SACCs do not have similar economic outcomes. An SACC has no variables or points of difference between SACC providers. An SACC is a fixed loan repayable over an agreed term."Consumer leases provide flexible terms and rental payment amounts, with the customer having the choice to take up a variety of end of term options."