Verstöße gegen Hardship‑Pflichten und unfaire Vollstreckung bei Kreditausfällen

Definition

AFCA guidance makes clear that once a default judgment has been entered and enforcement has begun, it cannot intervene to set aside the court order; however, it can review lenders' conduct leading up to default and judgment and require remediation where financial firms have not properly considered hardship or acted fairly.[2] The Australian Banking Association’s Financial Difficulty guideline under the Banking Code lists extensive obligations on banks to identify and assist customers in financial difficulty, including options such as postponing or reducing payments, extending loan terms, waiving fees and providing moratoria while customers seek advice.[5] Separately, the government has announced crackdowns on unfair foreclosures and the use of non‑monetary default clauses, indicating heightened enforcement risk for institutions that rely on aggressive or unfair enforcement instead of genuine hardship engagement.[7] When collections processes are ad hoc or poorly documented, lenders are exposed to AFCA complaints that often result in refunds of interest and fees, reversal of default listings and sometimes partial debt waivers. Public AFCA case data (not specific to a single bank) indicates that credit and finance related complaints can involve compensation and write‑backs ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars per case. On a logical basis, a mid‑sized savings institution facing 50–100 escalated AFCA or internal dispute resolution cases annually relating to hardship and foreclosure, with average direct remediation of A$5,000–10,000 per case plus internal handling cost, could easily incur A$250,000–A$1,000,000 in direct financial impact each year, excluding reputational costs and management time.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Savings institutions in Australia 🇦🇺 lose hundreds of thousands to millions of AUD per year through AFCA‑driven write‑offs, compensation and remediation work when collections staff mishandle hardship or enforcement. Automating hardship assessment, documentation and decisioning reduces the risk of non‑compliance and associated losses.

Affected Stakeholders

Head of Compliance, Chief Risk Officer, Collections Manager, Hardship Team Lead, General Counsel

Related Business Risks