Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
TelstraSuper’s explanation for why it allegedly breached internal dispute resolution procedures with respect to hundreds of complaints over an 18-month period was rebuffed by ASIC.
About 40 per cent of members who complained to TelstraSuper were made to wait longer than the 45-day deadline for a response, and most were not told why there was a delay, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleged in the Federal Court.
Counsel for the regulator, Christopher Archibald KC, told the court on Tuesday (15 April) morning that Telstra Super received about “18 or 20 complaints” on average between December 2021 and May 2023. The complaints increased from 34 to 126 by the end of the 18 months.
While TelstraSuper’s subsidiary, Telstra Super Financial Planning, also had some complaints included in the total data, Archibald told the court those complaints were not the subject of the current proceedings.
Archibald alleged that of the 323 complaints received in the relevant period, 127 were in breach “in some manner” of the internal dispute resolution procedures and, at any given month, about 10 were overdue.
Another 22 complainants were also not informed about their right to take their complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.
One of its main allegations was that TelstraSuper had failed to resource the IDR process so that it operated “fairly, efficiently and effectively”.
According to Archibald’s submissions, TelstraSuper will claim it should be protected by the five-business-day provisions.
To dispute this, ASIC took the court to an example of a complaint received on 10 January 2022, in which a member claimed he had not received relevant forms back in November 2021.
There was an investigation in late January and the complaint was closed the following month, over the 45-day deadline.
However, TelstraSuper claimed that because the forms were sent on 14 January and had to be “reissued” several days later, it meant the complaint’s start date was pushed back and closed within the deadline.
Telstra Super also claimed complexity or other circumstances beyond its control meant it could not meet the deadline.
“But ASIC’s case is that none of those circumstances meet the criteria for complexity or circumstances beyond control,” Archibald said.
“The circumstances that are said to be complex or causing delays have not, on Telstra Super’s case, been sheeted home to demonstrate that they had the consequence, meaning there was no reasonable opportunity to provide the response.”
Archibald also accused TelstraSuper of relying on “general circumstances” to explain away the breaches, including that the complainant themselves delayed providing information, that information was needed from third parties, or that the complaint is about an event that was more than six years old.
“Those general circumstances are neither specific to any particular complaint nor shown to had any causal consequence to the delay in responding to any particular complaint,” Archibald said.
The proceedings are ongoing.
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
