Ann: ASIC Claim, page-6

ASIC alleges that, between May 2019 and February 2021, Money3 failed to properly assess whether certain borrowers could meet repayment obligations before entering into loan contracts for the purchase of second-hand vehicles.

Each of these consumers, which included First Nations peoples, as well as a substantial proportion of Money3 customers, were either receiving Centrelink payments as their sole income or were on low incomes.

ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court (pictured above) said ASIC was concerned that Money3 did not properly assess the loans to determine whether the consumers could meet their repayments without causing harm.

“These loans were mainly provided to people on low incomes, adding to their financial distress,” Court said. “The consumer loans we are concerned with showed the purchase price of $8,000 for a second-hand vehicle with additional fees and warranty adding another $3,000.”

“An $11,000 loan is a substantial sum for a consumer on a low income to repay without having been properly assessed as to whether they could afford to repay it. In some cases the vehicle broke down, leaving the consumer with an unusable car and a loan that they couldn’t afford, compounding the detriment.”

ASIC’s specific allegations are that Money3 entered into unsuitable loans with certain consumers, meaning the consumer could not meet their repayments without experiencing financial hardship, and that Money3 failed to assess those loans as unsuitable by determining that the consumers could not meet the repayments without experiencing financial hardship.

ASIC also alleges Money3 failed to make reasonable inquiries about, and verify, those consumers’ financial situations, requirements and objectives, and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that its representatives complied with the credit legislation and were adequately trained and competent.

The financial services regulator also further alleges that when approving loans, Money3 applied arbitrary expense amounts from an internal “product guide” which were not based on the consumer’s financial situation and were substantially lower than their reasonably necessary expenses.

ASIC said that it was taking strong action against credit providers “who we consider have failed to consider the financial circumstances of vulnerable consumers” and this was a key focus this year.

The matter will be listed for directions on a date to be determined by the Federal Court.

Australian Broker