Government should address finance industry concerns about the standards of due process and transparency in external dispute resolution schemes, a review has recommended.A review of compensation arrangements for consumers of financial services, commissioned by the Minister for Financial Services, Bill Shorten, as part of the Future of Financial Advice reforms, highlighted the fact that "there appears to be some disquiet about aspects of the work of EDR schemes".Submissions to the review raised a number of concerns, including a lack of effective rights of review from decisions, and limited transparency of dispute resolution processes (including the grounds for awards).Another concern was the inability of a licensee member of an EDR scheme to join in with a proceeding with other licensees who may share responsibility for the loss or damage.A number of submissions queried the fact that member licensees would bear all the costs of a proceeding, even where there is a finding in their favour. The review report said: "There is a case for imposing some kind of fee on the applicant at the outset of a claim. This would provide some disincentive for claims of limited substance."Others worried that the liability standards for EDR awards were not confined to breaches of legal rights but might include broader notions, such as fairness or industry practice.There was concern among licensees about an apparent inconsistency between an EDR scheme's interpretation of licensee obligations and the regulatory guidance issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.The report said: "It appears that more attention needs to be given to underlying issues of due process and transparency in the context of the expanded jurisdiction."The concerns arise in the context of the recently expanded jurisdiction of EDRs to consider claims of up to A$500,000 and to award compensation of up to $280,000.Last week, the chief executive of the Credit Ombudsman Service, Raj Venga, issued a response, saying there were both internal and external processes for reviewing decisions.As to transparency, Venga said all determinations were published and that COSL's rules require that reasons be given. Venga said: "COSL is not aware of any inconsistency between its interpretation of licensee obligations and regulatory guidance issued by ASIC."