Australian Financial Complaints Authority

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is Australia’s independent external dispute resolution scheme for eligible complaints about financial firms. It helps consumers and small businesses resolve disputes concerning banking, credit, insurance, investments, financial advice and superannuation. AFCA is a not-for-profit, nongovernment organisation; its service is free to complainants, and it is not a financial regulator.^[1][2]

Establishment and place in the financial system

AFCA commenced operations on 1 November 2018. It replaced three earlier avenues for financial complaints: the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman, and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Bringing their work into one scheme gave consumers and small businesses a common external route for many disputes that had previously gone to different bodies.^[3]

The scheme is operated by Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited, a company limited by guarantee. AFCA’s Rules specify the complaints it can consider, the procedures it may use, the remedies it may provide and its reporting obligations. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) approves those Rules and oversees AFCA under a separate regulatory framework. Oversight does not make AFCA a government agency or give it ASIC’s regulatory enforcement role.^[2][4]

AFCA sits alongside, rather than replaces, financial firms’ internal dispute resolution processes. A customer ordinarily raises a complaint with the firm first, giving it an opportunity to investigate and respond. If the dispute remains unresolved, AFCA provides an external process. ASIC distinguishes this role from its own: AFCA considers individual disputes, while ASIC oversees requirements applying to firms and the external scheme.^[3][5]

Complaints and eligibility

AFCA’s jurisdiction spans several areas of personal and small-business finance. Examples include errors in banking transactions or credit listings; difficulty repaying a loan; a denied home, motor or life insurance claim; allegedly inappropriate investment advice; and a superannuation trustee’s decision about the distribution of a benefit. Eligible complaints may concern firms such as banks, lenders, insurers, financial advisers, mortgage brokers and superannuation funds.^[1][3]

The existence of a financial dispute does not, by itself, establish that AFCA can hear it. AFCA first checks the complaint against its Rules. In general, the firm must be one about which the scheme can accept complaints, and the subject matter must fall within its jurisdiction. AFCA provides a financial-firm search to help identify firms against which it can currently accept complaints; the search is not an endorsement of a firm.^[1][6]

The Rules also contain exclusions. AFCA identifies, among other examples, complaints already dealt with by a court, tribunal or predecessor scheme; some matters involved in legal proceedings; and certain insurance products, including private health insurance. A complaint about a firm’s assessment of a borrower’s credit risk may also fall outside the scheme, subject to exceptions involving matters such as irresponsible lending or financial hardship. Eligibility therefore depends on the particular facts and the applicable Rules, not just the type of product involved.^[1]

Superannuation complaints have distinct jurisdictional features. AFCA can consider specified decisions and conduct involving trustees, insurers and other decision-makers in relation to regulated superannuation arrangements. Some people and disputes fall outside that particular jurisdiction: for example, a complaint about financial advice relating to superannuation that was not provided by a trustee may instead be considered under AFCA’s investments and advice jurisdiction. Unlike other categories AFCA considers, superannuation complaints have no monetary limits, although specific time limits apply to some of them.^[7]

How a complaint proceeds

The usual starting point is the financial firm’s own complaints process. ASIC states that firms must communicate their final decision and tell complainants about their right to approach AFCA if they remain dissatisfied. AFCA also accepts complaints through its own channels and can assess whether they satisfy its Rules. The distinction between internal and external resolution matters because many disputes can be settled directly with the firm, without a formal AFCA decision.^[3][5]

AFCA describes its process in three broad stages: registration and referral, case management, and decision. At referral, it asks the firm to respond to the complaint. If the matter remains unresolved, case management may involve negotiation or conciliation. AFCA can then provide a preliminary assessment or issue a formal decision, called a determination. The approach need not follow every step in every case; AFCA says it may proceed directly to a decision where the circumstances warrant it.^[2][8]

When making a decision, AFCA considers what is fair in the circumstances, taking account of relevant law, industry codes and information from the parties. Its Rules also call for both sides to have an opportunity to present their views and provide relevant material. AFCA’s task is to resolve a dispute impartially, not to act as an advocate for either the complainant or the firm.^[1][2][2]

The effect of a determination differs between superannuation and other complaints. For a non-superannuation complaint, a determination accepted by the complainant becomes binding on the firm; AFCA’s guidance specifies acceptance within 30 days of issue. A superannuation determination is binding on both parties and generally takes effect immediately, unless it specifies another effective date. These differences are a material part of AFCA’s complaint framework.^[8][9]

Remedies, limits and unpaid determinations

AFCA can provide financial and non-financial remedies under its Rules. Depending on the complaint, these may include payment of money, a fee refund or waiver, a change to a debt or credit contract, correction of information, fulfilment of an insurance claim, or an apology. AFCA says its remedies seek, as nearly as possible, to address loss attributable to the firm’s conduct; it cannot impose punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages.^[10]

The distinction between jurisdictional limits and compensation caps is significant. A limit on the value of a claim AFCA can consider is not necessarily the same as the maximum amount it can award. Limits and caps for non-superannuation complaints have been adjusted under AFCA’s Rules, including through indexation. They should therefore be checked against the Rules applicable to a particular complaint rather than treated as a single permanent figure. Superannuation complaints are not subject to those monetary limits.^[4][7]

A binding determination does not, by itself, guarantee payment if a firm cannot meet its obligation. Australia’s Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is a separate arrangement for certain eligible consumers whose AFCA compensation determinations remain unpaid. Its scope is limited to specified areas—personal financial advice, credit intermediation, securities dealing and credit provision—and the AFCA process must be completed before a claim can be made to that scheme. AFCA states that the scheme can pay up to A$150,000 to an eligible consumer.^[11]

Funding, reporting and oversight

AFCA’s service is free to the public, while its funding model applies charges to member firms. AFCA describes features of that model including a user charge and complaint fees. The difference between free access for complainants and member funding is central to understanding how the external scheme operates; the fact that firms fund it does not make AFCA an advocate for firms.^[2][2][12]

Individual complaints can also reveal problems extending beyond one customer. AFCA defines a systemic issue as one likely to affect at least one other consumer or small business in addition to the complainant. It is required to identify and report systemic issues, serious legal contraventions and other specified matters to relevant regulators, including ASIC and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. This reporting connects case-level dispute resolution with the wider financial consumer-protection framework.^[13]

AFCA publishes complaints information through its Datacube. That resource allows users to examine complaint patterns by firm and product, but its firm-level display covers firms meeting a reporting threshold of at least four complaints in the relevant financial-year period. A displayed count is therefore a measure of complaints recorded under the Datacube’s scope, not, on its own, a finding that a firm breached the law or that every complaint was upheld.^[14]

Scale of operations

AFCA’s 2025–26 annual-review figures illustrate the scale and mix of its work. It reported 119,949 complaints received and 117,150 closed during the financial year ended 30 June 2026. Banking and finance accounted for 66,971 complaints received, general insurance for 36,022, superannuation for 8,755, investments and advice for 6,542, and life insurance for 1,561. AFCA reported an average closure time of 69 days across complaints closed that year.^[15]

These annual totals describe activity during a defined period; they do not establish that every complaint was within AFCA’s jurisdiction or resulted in compensation. AFCA separately reported complaints excluded as outside its jurisdiction. Its published figures are useful for describing demand for external dispute resolution, while the outcome of any individual complaint depends on the evidence, the Rules and the resolution process applied to that case.^[15][1]