Determination. 11 July Misleading conduct Interest rates Customer Service Delay in providing information Home loan Lender

Transcription

1 Determination 11 July 2016 Misleading conduct Interest rates Customer Service Delay in providing information Home loan Lender Credit and Investments Ombudsman Limited ABN

2 DETERMINATION Consumer: Financial Services Provider (FSP): Ms E FSP Date: 11 July 2016 DETERMINATION Consumer: Financial Services Provider (FSP): Ms E FSP Date: 11 July 2016 Summary 1. I find that the consumer is not entitled to the amounts that she has claimed over and above the amount that the FSP has offered to pay in resolution of her complaint. 1. This Determination affirms the position set out in our Review dated 16 March I do not propose to restate that analysis but instead adopt it for the purposes of this Determination. A copy of the Review is attached. 2. To resolve the complaint, I find that the FSP should pay the consumer the sum of $ as compensation for this complaint. Background to the complaint 3. On 4 April 2014, the consumer entered into a loan (the initial loan) for $580,000 to purchase an investment property located in New South Wales (the security property). The loan was managed by the FSP. 4. In November 2014, the consumer accepted an offer to reduce the applicable interest rate. 5. In February 2015, the consumer applied to increase the loan by $83,000. This variation was approved, and a new loan agreement (the refinanced loan) was entered into in April In October 2015, the consumer having moved into the security property, the FSP converted the loan from an investment loan to an owner-occupied loan. This conversion also involved a change to the applicable interest rate. 7. In relation to the initial loan, the consumer has complained that the FSP: charged interest incorrectly, and failed to backdate the reduced interest rate in a timely manner.

3 8. In relation to the refinanced loan, the consumer has complained that the FSP: (d) misled her about the applicable interest rate, misled her about how the refinance would operate, charged interest incorrectly, and failed to carry out the following tasks in a timely manner: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) provide her with loan account numbers, update the online account, refund a solicitor s fee of $363, and backdate the reduced interest rate. The consumer has also alleged that in offering compensation in full and final settlement of her various complaints the FSP has sought to blackmail her. Key issues 9. The key issues to be decided in this Determination are: whether the FSP has engaged in any of the alleged conduct, and if so, whether the FSP has appropriately remediated any loss or whether any further action is now required. Relevant considerations 10. In making a Determination, I am required to have regard to: relevant legal requirements or rights provided by law to the consumers in relation to the subject matter of the complaint, applicable codes of practice, good practice in the financial services industry, and fairness in all the circumstances Both the consumer and the FSP have been given the opportunity to provide information in support of their respective positions. I am satisfied that all information provided by the parties has been exchanged between the parties (subject to the exception noted in paragraph 13 below), and that each party is aware of the issues raised in this complaint. 12. The consumer has requested this Determination as she does not accept the conclusions reached in the Review. In making this Determination I have considered the information provided by both parties as well as the consumer s response to the Review. That response has not led me to a different conclusion, and for that reason it has not been necessary to allow the FSP an opportunity to respond to it. 1 CIO Rule th Edition.

4 Findings and reasons for decision 13. For the reasons set out in the attached Review, I find that: (d) (e) (f) while there were delays in making agreed changes to the applicable interest rate for the initial loan and the refinanced loan, those changes were backdated and as a result the consumer has not suffered any financial loss, the FSP did not incorrectly charge interest on the initial loan, while the FSP initially erred in charging interest on the refinanced loan, that error was appropriately rectified and as a result the consumer has not suffered any financial loss, while the FSP did not initially waive a solicitor s fee charged in respect of the refinanced loan, as it had agreed to do, that fee was refunded to the loan account in June 2015, the FSP has not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that was otherwise unlawful, and the FSP s offers of compensation in full and final settlement of the consumer s complaints did not constitute blackmail. 14. Having made those findings, it follows that I do not consider that the consumer has suffered any financial loss as a result of the FSP s conduct that has not yet been remediated. 15. That does not detract from the fact that the FSP has made errors which have needed correction, requiring vigilance by the consumer and causing her inconvenience. 16. It is appropriate that this be acknowledged and, again consistently with our Review, I find that the FSP s offer to pay an additional amount of $ is a fair and reasonable offer that adequately compensates the consumer for any non-financial loss she has suffered. Decision 17. I find that the FSP should pay the consumer compensation in the sum of $ Raj Venga Ombudsman

5 Review 16 March 2016 Misleading conduct Interest rates Customer Service Delay in providing information Home loan Lender Credit and Investments Ombudsman Limited ABN

6 Credit and Investments Ombudsman Ltd ABN Case Management PO Box A252 Sydney South NSW March 2016 Consumer: T F info@cio.org.au Ms E Financial Services Provider (FSP): FSP REVIEW 1. This review provides the parties with our assessment of the consumer s complaint. Summary 2. Based on the available information, we find that: in relation to the initial loan: (i) (ii) the FSP was entitled to debit more interest than the contractual monthly amount, and we cannot consider the consumer s claim about the time taken for the FSP to backdate the reduced interest rate, in relation to the refinance: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the FSP did not mislead the consumer about the applicable interest rate, the FSP did not mislead the consumer about how the refinance would operate, the FSP was entitled to charge interest on the consumer s loan splits, and we cannot consider the consumer s claims about the time taken for the FSP to: (A) (B) (C) (D) provide the consumer with her loan account numbers, update the consumer s online account, refund the solicitor s fee of $363, and backdate the reduced interest rate, and the FSP did not blackmail the consumer.

7 3. For these reasons, we are not able to consider the consumer s complaint further If no further information is provided in response to this Review, we will not be able to consider the complaint further and it will be closed. Background to the complaint The initial loan 5. On 4 April 2014, the consumer entered into a loan with business 1 for $580,000 to purchase an investment property located at the consumers address (the security property). The loan was managed by the FSP Page one of the loan agreement provided that loan funds were split into two accounts: split 1: $500,000 with a fixed interest rate of 4.74% per annum, and split 2: $80,000 with a variable interest rate of 4.85% per annum. 7. On 26 November 2014, the consumer signed a variation request. Under this request, the interest rate on the loan was to be converted to a variable interest rate of 4.64% per annum. 8. The variation was ultimately backdated and the interest rate reduction took place on 24 November The refinance 9. On 23 February 2015, the consumer signed a loan application seeking to increase her loan by $83,000. The loan was formally approved on 3 March The formal approval stated that the loan funds would be split into three accounts: split 1: $83,000 with a variable interest rate of 4.44% per annum, split 2: $80,000 with a variable interest rate of 4.23% per annum, and split 3: $500,000 with a variable interest rate of 4.34% per annum. 10. The FSP prepared the loan agreement on 4 March The loan amounts remained the same, however the interest rate applicable across all three splits had changed to 4.39% per annum. 11. Settlement occurred on 9 April Upon settlement, the consumer was charged a solicitor s fee of $ On 14 September 2015, the consumer notified the FSP that she was moving into the security property. 13. On 23 October 2015, the FSP converted the consumer s loan from an investment loan to an owner-occupied loan and adjusted the interest rate to 4.19% per annum across all three splits. 1 CIO Rules 9, 10.1(i), 10.1(q), 36.1(d) 9 th Edition. All references to the CIO Rules are a reference to the ninth edition rules. 2 For the purposes of this Review, we have referred to the FSP as the lender on record since, as mortgage manager, the FSP essentially carried out most of the lender s duties. Furthermore, all references to the FSP are inclusive of the consumer s broker, Mr B, as he was an employee of the FSP. Page 2 of 12

8 14. This conversion was ultimately backdated and the interest rate reduction was applied on 9 October Consumer s claims 15. As we understand it, the consumer is claiming: in relation to the initial loan, the FSP: (i) (ii) occasionally debited more interest than the monthly amount disclosed in the loan agreement, and failed to backdate the reduced interest rate in a timely manner, in relation to the refinance, the FSP: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) misled the consumer about the applicable interest rate, misled the consumer about how the refinance would operate, incorrectly charged interest on the consumer s loan splits, and failed to carry out the following tasks in a timely manner: (A) (B) (C) (D) provide the consumer with her loan account numbers, update the consumer s online account, refund the solicitor s fee of $363, and backdate the reduced interest rate, and the FSP blackmailed the consumer. 16. In resolution of her complaint, the consumer would like: compensation of $500, (d) additional compensation for stress and inconvenience, the FSP to cover all costs associated with the consumer refinancing with another credit provider, and the FSP to waive all discharge fees associated with the consumer refinancing with another credit provider. FSP s offer 17. The FSP has made the following offers to the consumer: an offer of $500 on 12 May 2015, and an offer of $800 on 13 May 2015, which was inclusive of the solicitor s fee of $ The consumer has declined both of these offers. In response, the consumer has stated that: Page 3 of 12

9 she was always entitled to a refund of the solicitor s fee, and therefore the FSP s increased offer of $800 in fact is a decrease of the original offer from $500 to $ On 19 June 2015, the FSP deposited $ in the consumer s nominated account. This amount consisted of: the solicitor s fee of $363, and interest of $4.02 charged to split The FSP confirmed on 8 March 2016 that the balance of the increased offer, being $432.98, remains open for the consumer s acceptance. Considerations which CIO has had regard to 21. In dealing with the complaint, CIO has observed procedural fairness and has had regard to: relevant legal requirements and rights provided by law to consumers, applicable codes of practice, good industry practice in the financial services industry, and (d) fairness in all the circumstances Both parties have had the opportunity to provide information in support of their respective positions. We are satisfied that, all information relevant to this complaint received from the FSP and the consumer has been exchanged between the parties. Our Review The initial loan Was the FSP entitled to debit more interest than the monthly amount? 23. The consumer states that, in or around May or June 2014, the FSP debited an interest payment that was more than the monthly amount disclosed in the loan agreement. This was because: the repayment date fell on a Saturday, and the FSP consequently debited the interest the following Monday. 24. The consumer claims that she was not aware that, when the repayment date fell on a weekend or public holiday, interest would accrue until the next business day. As a result, the consumer had insufficient funds to cover the additional interest. 25. According to the consumer s account statements for the initial loan, the initial loan settled on 24 April The repayment date was therefore the 24 th date of the month. 3 CIO Rule See FSP s dated 8 March Page 4 of 12

10 26. We have reviewed the initial loan agreement as well as the applicable terms and conditions: page two of the loan agreement provides that repayments were due on the same day of each month as the date of settlement, and page 13 of the applicable terms and conditions provides that, where the agreement says that something must be done on a particular day, and that day is not a business day, then it must be done on or by the next business day. 27. Accordingly, we consider that the consumer was reasonably notified that: her repayments were to be made monthly, on the same day each month as the date of settlement, settlement occurred on 24 April 2014, meaning that her repayments were due on the 24 th day of all subsequent months, and if the 24 th day of the month fell on a weekend or public holiday, then the repayment would be due the following business day. 28. We further note that clause 6.1 of the applicable terms and conditions provides that interest is accrued daily. Any interest debited after the repayment date would consequently be a higher amount. 29. The FSP has provided us with a table showing that, although the interest was occasionally debited after the repayment date, the total number of days during which interest accrued was the same number of days that would have accrued if the interest had been consistently debited on the repayment date We are therefore satisfied that the FSP was entitled to debit more interest than the contractual monthly amount, if the repayment date did not occur on a business day. 31. Accordingly, this claim has not been made out and we are unable to assist the consumer any further. 6 Can we consider the consumer s claims about customer service? 32. The consumer states that the FSP failed to amend the change to her interest rate in a timely manner. To support her claim, the consumer has provided us with a number of s between herself and the FSP. These s indicate that: on 7 November 2014, the FSP offered the consumer a reduced interest rate of 4.64%, the consumer accepted this interest rate on 11 November 2014, (d) on 17 November 2014, the FSP informed the consumer that the reduction would take effect on 24 November 2014, on 26 November 2014, the consumer signed the variation request (outlined at paragraph 7), and 5 The FSP s response to CIO dated 23 July CIO Rule 36.1(d). Page 5 of 12

11 (e) on 27 November 2014, the consumer informed the FSP that the rate change had not occurred. 33. The reduced interest rate was ultimately applied to the consumer s loan and backdated to 24 November This was almost three weeks after the FSP initially offered the interest rate. 34. The consumer claims that the above conduct is an indication of the FSP s lack of customer service and ability to process administrative tasks in a timely manner. 35. We are unable to consider claims about the quality of a financial services provider s customer service. This is because our role does not encompass disciplining financial services providers. If the consumer wishes to pursue this claim, it is more appropriate that she contacts the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), on , who regulates the financial services industry. 36. Furthermore, as the FSP ultimately backdated the interest rate to the correct date, it does not appear that the consumer has incurred any direct financial loss as a result of the FSP s delay. 37. As such, we are unable to consider this claim any further. 7 The refinance Did the FSP mislead the consumer about the applicable interest rate? 38. The consumer states that, in or around March 2015, she decided to refinance the initial loan in order to access the equity in the security property and borrow more funds. 39. The consumer signed the loan application on 23 February 2015, and formal approval was obtained on 3 March At the time of formal approval, the FSP offered her an interest rate of 4.23% on splits 2 and 3 (outlined in paragraph 9). However, the FSP later informed the consumer that this interest rate was a system error. The FSP subsequently issued a loan agreement that disclosed an interest rate of 4.39%. 41. The consumer claims that the FSP should honour the interest offered at the time of formal approval. 42. Misleading or deceptive conduct is prohibited under section 12DA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act). The obligation not to mislead or deceive is also consistent with good industry practice The FSP s conduct will only be misleading if it causes a mistaken belief as to the true position. 9 Furthermore, the consumer can only recover damages against the FSP if she can show that she suffered a loss because she relied on the misleading conduct To consider the consumer s claim, it is necessary to establish: 7 CIO Rules 9, 10.1(i), 10.1(q). 8 Such as: clause 4.7 of the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia Code of Practice (version effective 13 April 2014), Key Promise 1 of the Customer Owned Banking Code of Practice. 9 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA Section 12GF, ASIC Act. Page 6 of 12

12 what representation was made to her, whether the representation was misleading in the circumstances, and whether the consumer relied on the misleading representation to her detriment. 45. In other words, it is not sufficient for the consumer to prove that the relevant false or misleading representation was made. The consumer also needs to prove that she relied on the misrepresentation and suffered a loss as a result of acting on it. 46. The representation allegedly made to the consumer was that, if she was to refinance, an interest rate of 4.23% would be applicable. 47. We accept that the FSP made this representation to the consumer. However, we do not consider that such a representation was misleading in the circumstances. This is because the representation does not appear to be an act of actual persuasion on the part of the FSP to convince the consumer to refinance her loan. 48. Rather, it appears that the consumer wished to refinance her loan, in order to obtain an increase in loan funds, prior to formal approval being issued. This means that, in deciding to refinance her loan, the consumer did so without reliance on the FSP s representation. 49. For these reasons, we consider that the available information does not allow us to conclude that: the FSP s representation misled the consumer, and/or the consumer relied on this representation when deciding to refinance her loan. 50. As such, we are unable to consider this complaint further. 11 Did the FSP mislead the consumer about how the refinance would operate? 51. The consumer states that, during the refinance process, she instructed the FSP that the two splits on the initial loan were not to be affected, and only a new third split was to be added. 52. The consumer says that the FSP confirmed that splits 1 and 2 would not be altered by the addition of the third split. However, after the refinance settled, the consumer realised that a complete refinance had taken place, and three new loan splits had been created, while her initial splits had been discharged. 53. As a result of the refinance: the repayment date changed to the 9 th day of the month, which is inconvenient to the consumer as it does not coincide with the date she is paid, 12 and 11 CIO Rule 36.1(d). 12 We note that the consumer raised a further claim regarding the FSP s lack of customer service in explaining to her whether the repayment date could be changed. As stated throughout this Review, we cannot consider complaints about customer service: CIO Rule 10.1(q). However, we note that, in her to CIO of 15 December 2015, the consumer stated that this claim was no longer relevant, as she was in the process of refinancing to another credit provider. Page 7 of 12

13 the consumer was unable to access her account statements for the initial loan, 13 which she needed to provide to her accountant for taxation purposes. 54. The consumer claims that, if she was advised that her initial loan would be discharged and three new splits created, she would not have proceeded with the refinance. 55. We have applied the same considerations as those outlined in paragraphs 42 to The representation allegedly made to the consumer was that, by refinancing the initial loan, a third split would be added with no change to the original two splits. 57. In support of her claim, the consumer has provided us with a number of s between herself and the FSP around the time of the refinance. The s indicate the following: on 11 February 2015, the consumer: (i) said that she was confused by the set up of the refinance, as it appeared that she was applying for a second loan of $150,000 instead of a increase to her initial loan, (ii) indicated that she was seeking an increase to her loan of $83,000, and (iii) asked the FSP whether it was possible to keep the splits she currently had, and add an additional split, on 12 February 2015, the FSP: (i) (ii) explained that the second loan was for $150,000 as it included her available redraw of $68,000, and said that it would confirm whether a third split was possible, as the current type of facility only allowed two splits, (d) (e) (f) on 13 February 2015, the consumer told the FSP that she would prefer the addition of a third split of $83,000, as she would not require the total amount of $150,000, on 16 February 2015, the FSP confirmed that a third split would be possible, on 19 February 2015, the FSP asked the consumer to confirm the amount that each split was to be. On the same day, the consumer said that she would like the two current splits to remain as they were, and the third split to be the amount of the loan increase, and on 23 February 2015, the consumed confirmed that the loan amounts would be the original two splits of $500,000 and $80,000 respectively, plus the increase of $83,000 as the new third split. 13 The FSP has since provided a copy of the consumer s account statements for the initial loan. See FSP s dated 8 March As such, we consider this aspect of the complaint resolved. Page 8 of 12

14 58. We accept that it was the consumer s understanding that the initial splits were not changing, and that the only change to her facility was the addition of a third split. 59. However, we do not consider that the FSP made this representation to the consumer, or that the FSP s other representations were misleading in the circumstances. Rather, the FSP s representations appear to indicate that the consumer would be entering into a new loan with three account splits. This is because the FSP: informed the consumer that the type of loan facility she had did not allow for three splits, asked the consumer how she would like the splits to be arranged, and subsequently provided the consumer with a new loan agreement, not a variation to her initial loan. 60. We acknowledge that the consumer may have misunderstood that the loan agreement ultimately provided to her was for a complete refinance. However, we are unable to find that the FSP provided the consumer with any information about the refinance process that was incorrect or could mislead her into thinking that her initial splits would not be discharged or otherwise affected. 61. For these reasons, we are unable to consider the consumer s complaint any further. 14 Did the FSP incorrectly charge interest to the consumer s loan splits? 62. The consumer claims that the FSP: 15 has charged too much interest on split 2 of the loan. In particular, the interest charged on 11 May 2015 should have only been $29, and not $89.90, and applied interest of $ to the new split, between 24 March 2015 to 9 April 2015, when it should not have done so. Interest on split As stated at paragraph 26, clause 6.1 of the terms and conditions, which also applies to the consumer s refinance, state that interest is accrued daily on the outstanding balance. 64. According to the account statements, it appears as though the consumer s calculations only take into the account the balance as at 16 April 2015, which was $7, However, the accrual of chargeable interest began on 9 April 2015, when the loan funds of $80,000 were credited to split CIO Rule 36.1(d). 15 The consumer also claims that the FSP has, on occasion, charged interest that was above the monthly interest amount. This claim was reviewed at paragraphs 23 to 30. For the same reasons, we consider the consumer s similar claim about the refinance has not been made out: CIO Rule 36.1(d). 16 According to the consumer s account statements, on 16 April 2015 an internal account transfer took place, where $72,500 was debited from split 1 and credited to split 2, which left a balance of $7,500 on split 2. Page 9 of 12

15 66. We have attached a spreadsheet displaying our calculations for the parties consideration. Based on these calculations, we are satisfied that the FSP charged the correct amount of interest, and this claim has not been made out. 17 Interest applied to the new split 67. With respect to the consumer s claim about interest charged to the new split, it appears that this was in fact accrued interest from the initial loan: $ accrued on split 1, and $14.43 accrued on split The FSP explained the above to the consumer in an on 12 May We accept that it would have been more prudent for the FSP to apply the interest to the relevant loan splits, and not the new split. This is because it was the consumer s intention for the new split to have a balance of $nil, with an option to drawdown the funds when she needed them. 70. However, we note that the FSP refunded the interest that accrued on the new split, up until 11 May 2015 (outlined in paragraph 19). The FSP then informed the consumer on 12 May 2015 that the interest was payable and its reasons why. 71. We also consider that the interest was payable from this date onwards. 72. Furthermore, it appears that the consumer has gained a monetary benefit from the interest being charged to the new split. This is because, as previously stated, interest on the consumer s splits is accrued daily on the outstanding balance. Therefore, if the FSP applied the interest to the relevant splits, the consumer would have been charged a higher amount of interest. 73. We have attached a spreadsheet displaying our calculations for the parties consideration. Based on these calculations, we are satisfied that the consumer has not incurred a financial loss as a result of the FSP s conduct. 74. Accordingly, we are unable to consider this aspect of the consumer s complaint futher. 18 Can we consider the consumer s claims about customer service? 75. The consumer states that, after settlement of the refinance, the FSP failed to: update the consumer s online account in a timely manner. Consequently, the consumer s online account reflected the consumer s loan as having five splits, instead of three. This was because the FSP had not yet closed the consumer s two splits from the initial loan, and provide the consumer with her loan account numbers until almost a month after settlement, which prevented the consumer from completing online transactions. 17 CIO Rules 9, 10.1(i), 36.1(d). 18 CIO Rules 9, 10.1(i), 36.1(d). Page 10 of 12

16 76. Additionally, the consumer states that the FSP represented that the solicitor s fee of $363 would be waived or refunded upon settlement. However, the refund did not take place until 19 June Lastly, the consumer states that, when she moved into the security property, the applicable interest rate should have reduced on 9 October However, the FSP did not convert the loan until 23 October 2015, and needed to backdate the interest. 78. In support of her claims, the consumer has provided us with a number of s between herself and the FSP which indicate that: the consumer firstly informed the FSP about the five splits on 14 April 2015, which the FSP corrected on 1 May 2015, the consumer told the FSP that she did not know the loan account numbers on 20 May The FSP provided her with the loan account numbers on the same day, and the FSP advised the consumer that the solicitor s fee would not be charged on 19 February 2015, 20 February 2015, 3 March 2015 and 13 May The consumer claims that the above instances of the FSP s conduct is further evidence of poor customer service and an inability to action tasks in a timely manner. 80. As stated in paragraphs 35 and 36, we are unable to consider complaints about a financial services provider s customer service, particularly where it does not appear that the consumer has suffered a financial loss. 81. We are therefore unable to consider these claims any further. 19 Did the FSP blackmail the consumer? 82. The consumer states that, when the FSP made its offers to her of $500 and $800, the FSP informed her that the offers were in full and final settlement of her dispute. 83. The consumer claims that the FSP has therefore indicated that she would not receive a refund unless she agreed to cease pursuing her claims, and that this constitutes blackmail. 84. We consider that the FSP s offers to the consumer represented normal conduct in the course of negotiations, with the aim of resolving the consumer s dispute. We therefore do not consider that the FSP acted in an inappropriate manner. 20 Recommendation of reasonable offer 85. For a number of the consumer s claims, we have concluded that the consumer did not incur any direct financial loss as a result of the FSP s conduct. 86. However, we acknowledge that the consumer would have experienced stress and inconvenience due to the FSP s administrative errors and the time taken to correct those errors CIO Rules 9, 10.1(i), 10.1(q). 20 CIO Rule 10.1(q). Page 11 of 12

17 87. We may only award compensation for non-financial loss in limited circumstances, and generally not a substantial amount Based on the available information, we consider that the FSP s offer to the consumer of $ is a fair and reasonable offer that adequately compensates the consumer for the non-financial loss she has suffered. 89. We therefore recommend that the consumer accept the FSP s offer in full and final settlement of the complaint. 23 Response to Review 90. For the reasons set out above, we are unable to consider this complaint further If the consumer wishes to accept the FSP s offer, the consumer must inform us of this by 30 March If the consumer does not wish to accept the offer put forward by the FSP, the consumer must provide us with her reasons why, together with any further information which would indicate that we can continue to investigate some or all of this complaint, by 30 March If the consumer provides us with new information by this date, we will review this information to consider whether it changes our findings and, if it does, we will continue our investigation. 94. The consumer can also ask for a Determination. A Determination is made by the Ombudsman and is a final decision about the complaint. 95. If we do not receive a response from the consumer within this time, or if the information provided does not change our findings, the complaint will be closed. Please note that once a complaint is closed, it can only be reopened in exceptional circumstances. The consumer must respond by 30 March If more time is needed, a request for an extension should be made as soon as possible and, at the very latest, before 30 March We note that the consumer provided us with a letter from Moorebank Family Practice dated 17 June The letter states, among other things, that the consumer has multiple symptoms of depression, and that the consumer reported the trigger for her symptoms as being her dealings with the FSP. 22 CIO Guideline th Edition. All references to the CIO Guidelines are to the fifth edition guidelines. 23 CIO Rule CIO Rules 9, 10.1(i), 10.1(q), 36.1(d). Page 12 of 12