A step too far in consumer credit protection: Are external dispute resolution schemes wielding the Sword of Damocles?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Under existing consumer credit legislation, all credit providers are required to be licensed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Membership of an external dispute resolution scheme – either the Credit Ombudsman Service Limited (COSL) or the Financial Ombudsman Service– is compulsory for license holders. As members, credit providers are subject to the Rules and Constitutions of the respective schemes, a requirement which has far-reaching effects on commercial dealings. This article explores the scope of COSL’s powers, finding these to be excessively wide, and inherently unfair towards credit providers. The principal contention of the article is that, instead of providing a dispute resolution service, COSL imposes a “tyranny” on credit providers obliged to comply with the scheme’s onerous and oppressive rules.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)322-335
Number of pages14
JournalAustralian Business Law Review
Volume40
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 10 Jan 2012

Fingerprint

credit
public advocate
license
constitution
legislation

Cite this

@article{e3f8fa56f95c4dc2bd0da6af843a640e,
title = "A step too far in consumer credit protection: Are external dispute resolution schemes wielding the Sword of Damocles?",
abstract = "Under existing consumer credit legislation, all credit providers are required to be licensed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Membership of an external dispute resolution scheme – either the Credit Ombudsman Service Limited (COSL) or the Financial Ombudsman Service– is compulsory for license holders. As members, credit providers are subject to the Rules and Constitutions of the respective schemes, a requirement which has far-reaching effects on commercial dealings. This article explores the scope of COSL’s powers, finding these to be excessively wide, and inherently unfair towards credit providers. The principal contention of the article is that, instead of providing a dispute resolution service, COSL imposes a “tyranny” on credit providers obliged to comply with the scheme’s onerous and oppressive rules.",
author = "Francina Cantatore and Brenda Marshall",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "322--335",
journal = "Australian Business Law Review",
issn = "0310-1053",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "5",

}

A step too far in consumer credit protection: Are external dispute resolution schemes wielding the Sword of Damocles? / Cantatore, Francina; Marshall, Brenda.

In: Australian Business Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 5, 10.01.2012, p. 322-335.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A step too far in consumer credit protection: Are external dispute resolution schemes wielding the Sword of Damocles?

AU - Cantatore, Francina

AU - Marshall, Brenda

PY - 2012/1/10

Y1 - 2012/1/10

N2 - Under existing consumer credit legislation, all credit providers are required to be licensed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Membership of an external dispute resolution scheme – either the Credit Ombudsman Service Limited (COSL) or the Financial Ombudsman Service– is compulsory for license holders. As members, credit providers are subject to the Rules and Constitutions of the respective schemes, a requirement which has far-reaching effects on commercial dealings. This article explores the scope of COSL’s powers, finding these to be excessively wide, and inherently unfair towards credit providers. The principal contention of the article is that, instead of providing a dispute resolution service, COSL imposes a “tyranny” on credit providers obliged to comply with the scheme’s onerous and oppressive rules.

AB - Under existing consumer credit legislation, all credit providers are required to be licensed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Membership of an external dispute resolution scheme – either the Credit Ombudsman Service Limited (COSL) or the Financial Ombudsman Service– is compulsory for license holders. As members, credit providers are subject to the Rules and Constitutions of the respective schemes, a requirement which has far-reaching effects on commercial dealings. This article explores the scope of COSL’s powers, finding these to be excessively wide, and inherently unfair towards credit providers. The principal contention of the article is that, instead of providing a dispute resolution service, COSL imposes a “tyranny” on credit providers obliged to comply with the scheme’s onerous and oppressive rules.

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 322

EP - 335

JO - Australian Business Law Review

JF - Australian Business Law Review

SN - 0310-1053

IS - 5

ER -