Fidrec and fairness of its process

An slightly edited version of this letter was published in the Straits Times Forum, 1 January 2011 

I refer to the letter entitled “Fidrec adjudicators’ decision not binding on complainant” by Ms. Eileen Pek, head of Banking & Capital Markets of this center.

Fidrec was established as an alternative avenue for consumers to resolve their disputes with the financial institutions, instead of using the expensive route of taking legal action in court.

It is important for Fidrec to be seen by consumers as being impartial and fair in its decisions. In his letter of 8 December, Larry Haverkamp had pointed out several aspects of the process which were unfair to consumers. These issues were not adequately addressed in Ms. Pek reply. The main justification of her reply seemed to be that the adjudicator’s decisions are not binding on the complainant.

Ms. Pek said that if the complainant is not happy with the decision, the complaint is free to continue with legal action. Mr. Haverkamp had pointed out that the consumer would have been placed in a weaker position after the Fidrec process, as they would have given valuable information for the financial institution to mount its defence in court.

Many consumers, who have gone through the Fidrec process to resolve their complaints of mis-selling of the structured financial products, had told me that the process was unfair, disappointing and biased against them.

It is important that Fidrec built up trust among consumers of its role as an alternative dispute resolution center. I suggest that Fidrec or the Monetary Authority of Singapore should arrange an independent organisation to carry out a survey among consumers who have gone through their process to find out if they felt that their cases have been fairly dealt with through the Fidrec process.

Tan Kin Lian