Could you please assist by looking at this case study and giving a guide on answers to the Questions;

Mrs Y - Investment Loan case study Thomas Howard, a mortgage broker for the XYZ Financial Services Group, sourced Mrs Y's details from a default listing made by the local council as a result of unpaid council rates. The broker contacted Mrs Y and offered to obtain finance for her to: consolidate her existing loans pay outstanding bills, and invest additional funds with him at a return of 10%p.a., which would be at least 3%p.a. above the interest rate payable on the loan. The broker completed an application for finance on Mrs Y's behalf applying for: an $80,000 home loan, and a $250,000 interest only investment loan. The application disclosed Mrs Y earned an annual income of $60,000 as the head chef of Eata-Lot restaurant. Annexed to the application in support was a letter from Eat-a-Lot restaurant confirming Mrs Y's employment and income. The financial services provider (FSP) approved Mrs Y's application. It made available to her $80,000 for debt consolidation and paid directly to her broker the investment loan proceeds of $250,000. Mrs Y granted a mortgage over her family home. For two years, Mrs Y received regular returns from her broker. Then she was advised that her broker was ill and that his investments would be realised to return capital advanced by investors. Mrs Y subsequently could not make contact with the broker and had been unsuccessful in recovering her $250,000 investment. The complaint Mrs Y filed a formal complaint with the Approved Australian Regulator (AAR) which said that: she was in receipt of Centrelink benefits she supplemented her pension by selling home-made preserves at the local council monthly market her annual income was less than $15,000 she had never worked for a restaurant she had never earned $60,000 the signature on the loan application was not her signature she signed the FSP's loan offer and mortgage she accepted liability for the loan she had received to consolidate her debts and pay outstanding bills she should not be liable for the false and misleading information the broker provided to the FSP, and she should not be liable for the $250,000 investment loan. The FSP's response The FSP said: the finance application had been introduced by an introducer, who was affiliated to a mortgage manager, A it paid commission to A for introducing successful finance applications it had no affiliation directly with the introducer or with the broker, and was not liable for their conduct Mrs Y's loan application was assessed in accordance with its policies and procedures its procedure included a telephone call to Mrs Y's employer to confirm her employment and income Mrs Y's verified income of $60,000 was sufficient to service her $330,000 loans even without relying on the anticipated 10%p.a. return from her investment with the broker, and it had no liability to Mrs Y for her investment decisions it had no liability for the conduct of Mrs Y's broker, and Mrs Y was liable to repay both loans. Investigation of signature on loan application ARR investigators inspected Mrs Y's signature on: a privacy consent form the FSP's loan offer, and her original dispute lodged with the authorities On a simple inspection, there were significant inconsistencies between the signatures on these documents when compared with the signature on the loan application. In the case manager's view, these inconsistencies supported the conclusion that Mrs Y did not sign the loan application before it was presented to the FSP. Investigation of who was responsible for the broker's acts In response to ARR's request for information, Mrs Y said: she had met the broker at her home she provided him with the information he requested about her income and financial position she trusted the broker she did not check the details completed by the broker, and she was not asked to sign any documents by the broker at that meeting. ARR noted the loan application form identified: Ms H as agent for the introducer, not the broker the domain name for Ms H's e-mail address as the broker's business This information suggested the broker and the introducer had a working relationship. The ARR investigator also noted the broker's name was the same as the proprietor of Eat-aLot restaurant who had signed the letter of employment confirming Mrs Y's employment and income which was cause for suspicion. While the FSP had acknowledged it had an affiliation with A, the mortgage manager, there was no information to support a conclusion that the broker or introducer was an agent or held themselves out as representing the FSP. Therefore, there was no principal/agent relationship between the broker and the FSP that would make the FSP liable for the conduct of the broker or the introducer in submitting information supporting Mrs Y's loan application. Other Factors ARR noted that Mrs Y's loan application was approved via the FSP's automated credit approval process. The FSP's policy said: the preferred verification of income was by way of confirmation of regular credits to an account deposit details are more reliable than payslips or other documentation which can be easily forged new customers must produce original or verified account statements, and in some cases, additional information, such as a letter from an employer, may be required to clarify information contained in an applicant's account statements.

Questions 1: Identify the type of consumer information Mrs Y should have been provided by the broker before the loan documents were signed.

Question 2: a. Identify the financial services legislation which covers the provision of consumer information described in Task 1 above.

b. Which elements of the Code of Banking Practice would have supported this legislation?

Question 3: Identify evaluate appropriate professional development opportunities for the Broker, Thomas Howard

Question 4: Outline ways in which the AFS could have planned its team work more effectively so as to avoid the issues involved in the case study.

Question 5: Identify ways a very small business, like a single employee mortgage broker, could implement sustainability principles and practices