Inadequate testing, monitoring and control of processes and system changes are at the heart of many of the failings the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has identified in its latest review of systemic issues in banking and finance. In the six months to December, AFCA reported 50 systemic issues – complaints that have an impact on more people than just the complainant – to regulators.  Twenty-nine of them were banking issues, including duplicated fees and charges, failure to recognise payment deferrals on loans for customers in hardship, incorrect reporting of repayment history, credit reporting errors and delays in correcting errors. AFCA said it often sees inadequate testing before implementing system changes and little ongoing monitoring when changes are made. Other problems are caused by insufficient control of processes involving authorised representatives and third parties. In one case, a system fix created an error where 1.2 million debit card transactions were duplicated. When the duplications appeared in customer accounts, customers had their account balances reduced. The same firm incorrectly deleted transactions, with the result that some customers were granted access to funds they should not have had access to, resulting in overdrawn account and accompanying fees. The firm ended up paying A$1.8 million in remediation to affected customers. AFCA said: “We frequently see a lack of adequate testing before installing system fixes. This can lead to ongoing and compounding issues.” In another case, the firm was incorrectly reporting repayment history information on customers’ credit files during active hardship arrangements. AFCA said this was the result of a data logic error in the firm’s comprehensive credit reporting, and processing gaps. AFCA said: “Dedicated focus, prioritisation and care in monitoring vulnerable customers help to ensure they are protected from errors and systemic issues.” In a case involving scam activity, a firm received an AUSTRAC scam warning with several suspicious entities listed in the notice. Such warnings include recommendations that transfers to listed entities be blocked. A customer complained that it transacted 31 times with an AUSTRAC-listed scam entity. The financial firm acknowledged that it had received the AUSTRAC warning but did not have processes in place to prevent its customers transferring funds to the entity. It repaid $400,000 to the customer. The firm was required to upgrade its systems and set up a team dedicated to increasing awareness about scams.