FNSFMB403 Present broking options to client

Assessment 2 - Performance

question

1. Assess whether the lender correctly identified and documented relevant product information that met the client's needs, and presented suitable options to the clients at a level of their understanding

Case study (information related to question)

FNSFMB403 Present broking options to client

Delayed Settlement- Case Study

A couple applied for a new product a lender had just begun offering; a home loan with a debit card facility attached. Unfortunately, the time taken to approve the loan elapsed to 10 weeks. Furthermore, after the loan had settled it took a further six weeks longer than what was indicated in the lenders advertising to be delivered.

The couple also claimed that the lender's website was misleading because it stated that an application fee would not be payable. The couple argued that the legal documentation fee of $310 charged on the loan was effectively an application fee.

The lender offered to compensate the couple for the cost of calls made and provide the couple with certain other benefits that were not otherwise available under the loan facility. A case of wine was also delivered to the couple as a token of good faith.

Complainants' Position

The couple, in addition to the resolution offered by the financial services provider, sought monetary compensation for the delay in settlement, late receipt of the debit card, their inability to access the loan proceeds until receipt of the debit card, and also sought reimbursement of the legal documentation fee they incurred.

Financial Services Provider's Position

The financial services provider asserted that no loss had in fact been suffered by the couple and that the delay in settlement was not wholly attributable to them.

Whilst the lender was responsible for some of the delays, the delays were predominantly the result of the couple having made changes to the loan application during the approval process and having been tardy in returning documentation to the lender.

It was also determined that the delay in the couple's receipt of the debit card was neither the fault of the lender nor the couple. The cards had been lost in the post, but in any event, the couple had in fact been able to access the loan funds through internet banking and direct redraw request from the lender.

It was also determined that the legal documentation fee was clearly distinguishable from the application fee on the lender's website.