Submission - Joint submission to the 2007 Review of the Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Code of Conduct to ASIC (May 2007)

6. EFT Code, Part A (Requirements)

Q12 – Should the requirement in cl 3.1 to provide written notification in advance of an increase in a fee or charge be replaced by another process? For example, should the notice appear in the national or local media on the day on which the increase starts?
Q13 – Should cl 4.1(a) be revised to allow users to ‘opt-in’ to receive a receipt?
Q14 – Should cl 4.1(a) be revised to deal with the problem of ATMs or other machines running out of paper for receipts? If so, how should it be amended?
Q15 – Should cl 4.1(b)(v) be changed to allow a receipt for an EFT transaction by voice communication to specify the merchant identification number instead of the name of the merchant to whom the payment was made?
Q16 – Should the EFT Code give more guidance on cl 4.1(a)(viii) regarding balance disclosure on receipts? If so, what guidance should be added?
Q17 – Is there duplication or inconsistency between Part A of the EFT Code and the requirements of the Corporations Act that should be reviewed? How should any such issues be dealt with?
Q18 – Are there aspects of the product disclosure regime under the Corporations Act that should be adopted as part of the regulatory framework under Part A of the EFT Code?
Q19 – Should cl 7 be revised to specifically require subscribing institutions to identify and correct discrepancies between amounts recorded on the user’s electronic equipment or access method as transferred, and amounts recorded by the institution as received? What are your views on the suggested redrafting?
Q20 – Should the EFT Code include a definition of the term ‘complaint’ under cl 10? If so, should it adopt the definition in AS ISO 10002–2006? Does the standard sufficiently address uncertainty about what is a complaint for the purposes of the EFT Code? Are there any other steps that might be taken to assist stakeholders to understand what is meant by a complaint under the Code?
Q21 – Should AS ISO 10002—2006 become the required standard for internal complaint handling under the EFT Code?
Q22 – Should account institutions be given a brief period within which to investigate a complaint before they must give the complainant written advice on how they investigate and handle complaints (as required under cl 10.3)? If so, what is an appropriate period?
Q23 – Should any changes be made to the timeframe for resolving complaints under cl 10 of the EFT Code?
Q24 – Do you have information or views about the level of compliance with cl 10?
Q25 – Has the procedure in cl 10.12 been an effective incentive to compliance? Are further incentives required, and if so what form should they take?
Q26 – Should the EFT Code be amended to cover situations when the subscribing institution is unable to, or fails to, give the dispute resolution body a copy of the record within a certain time? If yes, should the Code specify that a dispute resolution body is entitled to resolve a factual issue to which a record relates on the basis of the evidence available to it?
Q27 – Should there be a time after which EFT Code subscribers are no longer required to resolve complaints about EFT transactions on the basis set out in Part A of the Code?





	home about us services projects research contact
	» home » research » assets » eft review