It seems that many home loan lenders are failing to give proper consideration to financial hardship applications received from borrowers. The Credit Ombudsman Service, which released its 2011 annual report recently, has identified this as the biggest issue it faced with complaints lodged against lenders last year.
COSL reports that 34 per cent of all complaints it received during the 2010/11 financial year related to financial difficulties, specifically where a lender would not agree to renegotiate home loan repayments for borrowers facing financial hardship.
COSL chief executive Raj Venga said: “In about 72 per cent of those cases the borrower had been served with a home loan default notice or the lender had commenced legal proceedings, repossessed the property or issued a notice to vacate.
Once COSL gets involved, generally a satisfactory outcome is achieved.
“This suggests that not all lenders are giving due consideration to the possibility that the borrower may be in financial hardship or that a change in the borrower’s payment obligations may be appropriate.”
Majority of complaints received from borrowers are around communication with lenders and their lack of willingness to negotiate with borrowers facing financial hardship.
COSL reprting mechanisms suggest that the underlying causes of financial hardship are generally loss or work, or a reduction in family income (in 30 per cent of cases); cost of living issues, including other debt held by borrowers with car loans, credit cards etc. (21 per cent of cases); illness (19 per cent); business failure (14 per cent); increases in the cost of loans (eight per cent), and relationship breakdown (seven per cent). Natural disaster accounted for only one per cent of the hardship cases determined by COSL.
Apart from financial hardship, systemic issued identified by the Ombudsman concerned deferred establishment fees, default listings and motor vehicle leases.
With respect to deferred establishment fees, many borrowers did not understand that a fee may be applicable to their loans and believed that the lender should waive it due to their personal circumstances.
Common complaints relating to default listings were that there were no overdue payments at the time the listing was made, the borrower was not informed about the overdue payment and that the overdue amount had been paid but the listing remained in place.
There were a number of complaints made to COSL in relation to motor vehicle leases including issues such as the quality of the vehicle, the availability of the warranty and the amount of termination fees.
Other common complaints were that the financial institution failed to follow instructions, incorrectly listed, incorrectly stated the amount of debt, applied the wrong interest rate, made mistakes regarding direct debits, provided finance that was inappropriate or behaved in a misleading way (particularly in relation to fees).
Disputes with respect to home loans were the most common reason for consumers to complain to COSL
Of complaints that were closed during the year, 17 per cent were by mutual agreement of the complainant and the financial institution, another 17 per cent were resolved in favour of the complainant, 14 per cent were not substantiated and 32 per cent were discontinued.
COSL membership increased from 12,724 to 15,535, a lift assisted by the wider reach of national consumer law.