ASIC Regulatory Guides set out how the regulator expects credit providers to comply with the law. When credit providers fail to meet these expectations — whether in responsible lending assessments, hardship handling, or dispute resolution — it can form grounds for challenging default listings and other negative credit actions.
What Are ASIC Regulatory Guides?
ASIC Regulatory Guides (RGs) are documents published by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that explain how ASIC interprets and administers the law. They provide practical guidance on how credit providers, brokers, and other licensees should comply with their legal obligations.
While regulatory guides are not law themselves, they represent ASIC's official view on compliance. Credit providers who fail to follow the guidance may face regulatory action, and their conduct may be found to breach the underlying legislation.
For consumers, understanding these guides is valuable because they show what proper conduct looks like — making it easier to identify when a credit provider has fallen short.
Regulatory guides represent ASIC's interpretation of the law and set out expectations for compliance. While not legally binding in themselves, failure to follow the guidance can indicate a breach of the underlying legislation (such as the NCCP Act) and may be used as evidence in disputes and enforcement actions.
Key Regulatory Guides for Credit
Several ASIC regulatory guides are particularly relevant to credit and credit repair. Here are the most important ones:
RG 209 is ASIC's comprehensive guide on responsible lending. It explains how credit providers should meet their obligations under the NCCP Act to ensure loans are "not unsuitable" for borrowers.
- Reasonable Inquiries: Guidance on what questions lenders should ask about your financial situation
- Verification Steps: How lenders should verify the information you provide
- Assessment Process: How to determine if you can repay without substantial hardship
- Documentation: What records lenders should keep of their assessment
- Scalability: How the level of inquiry should scale with loan complexity and risk
If a lender failed to follow RG 209 guidance when assessing your loan — for example, not verifying your income or not asking about your expenses — and the loan resulted in a default, this failure can support a challenge to the default listing.
RG 165 covers how financial service providers must handle disputes and complaints. For credit, it includes important guidance on handling hardship requests from borrowers experiencing financial difficulty.
- Hardship Requests: How credit providers should assess and respond to hardship applications
- Response Timeframes: Maximum times for acknowledging and deciding hardship requests
- Genuine Consideration: The requirement to properly assess, not just refuse, requests
- Written Reasons: Obligation to explain refusals in writing
- Escalation Rights: Informing consumers about external dispute resolution
If a credit provider listed a default after ignoring or improperly refusing a hardship request, this breach of RG 165 expectations can support a challenge. The default may have been avoidable if hardship was properly considered.
RG 271 sets out detailed requirements for internal dispute resolution (IDR) processes. It applies to all financial service providers including credit providers and sets minimum standards for complaint handling.
- Response Times: Maximum 30 days to provide a final response (or 21 days for hardship)
- Acknowledgment: Must acknowledge complaints within 1 business day (or 24 hours if urgent)
- Written Response: Must provide written reasons if complaint is rejected
- AFCA Referral: Must inform consumer of right to escalate to external dispute resolution
- Record Keeping: Must maintain records of all complaints and outcomes
When disputing credit file listings, RG 271 ensures credit providers must respond properly and within set timeframes. If they fail to do so, this can strengthen your dispute and may be raised with AFCA or ASIC.
RG 96 sets out ASIC and ACCC's expectations for debt collection conduct. It covers what collectors can and cannot do when pursuing debts, and how they should treat debtors experiencing hardship.
- Contact Limits: Restrictions on how often collectors can contact you
- Harassment Prevention: Prohibition on threatening, abusive, or coercive conduct
- Hardship Recognition: Requirement to consider hardship circumstances
- Privacy Protection: Rules on who collectors can contact about your debt
- Accurate Information: Obligation to provide correct debt details
If a debt collector or credit provider engaged in improper collection practices before listing a default, this can be relevant to challenging the listing. Coercive or harassing conduct may indicate broader compliance failures.
Quick Reference: Other Relevant Guides
How Regulatory Guides Help with Credit Repair
Understanding ASIC's regulatory guides is valuable for credit repair because they establish the benchmark for acceptable conduct. When credit providers fall short of these benchmarks, it creates grounds for challenging their actions.
1. Identifying Responsible Lending Failures
RG 209 provides detailed guidance on what a proper loan assessment looks like. If your lender:
- Didn't ask about your expenses or existing debts
- Didn't verify your income with documents
- Approved a loan you clearly couldn't afford
- Didn't keep records of their assessment
These failures can indicate a breach of responsible lending obligations, potentially making resulting defaults challengeable.
2. Hardship Request Failures
RG 165 and RG 271 set out clear expectations for how hardship requests must be handled. If a credit provider:
- Ignored your hardship request
- Refused without genuine consideration
- Didn't respond within required timeframes
- Listed a default while hardship was being considered
These failures can support a challenge to any default that resulted.
3. Complaint Handling Failures
RG 271 requires credit providers to handle complaints properly. If they:
- Didn't acknowledge your complaint
- Took too long to respond
- Didn't give proper reasons for rejecting your complaint
- Didn't tell you about AFCA
These failures can be raised in escalated disputes and demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance.
What We Look For
- Evidence the lender didn't follow RG 209 assessment processes
- Hardship requests that weren't handled per RG 165/271 standards
- Complaint handling that breached RG 271 timeframes
- Debt collection conduct that violated RG 96 guidelines
- Any pattern of non-compliance with regulatory expectations
Key Timeframes from Regulatory Guides
The regulatory guides set out important timeframes that credit providers must meet:
| Action | Timeframe | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledge complaint | 1 business day (24 hours if urgent) | RG 271 |
| Respond to standard complaint | 30 calendar days | RG 271 |
| Respond to hardship request | 21 calendar days | RG 271 |
| Provide IDR response | Written response with reasons | RG 271 |
| Inform about AFCA | In final IDR response | RG 271 |
If a credit provider misses these deadlines, it's not just poor service — it's a compliance failure. When building a credit repair case, documenting missed deadlines strengthens your position and demonstrates the credit provider's broader compliance issues.
ASIC Enforcement of Regulatory Guides
ASIC actively monitors compliance with regulatory guide expectations and takes action against credit providers who fail to meet them. Recent enforcement has focused on:
- Responsible lending failures — penalties for inadequate loan assessments
- Hardship handling — action against providers who don't properly consider hardship
- Complaint handling — enforcement for IDR process failures
- Debt collection conduct — action against aggressive or improper collection
This enforcement activity demonstrates that the regulatory guides have real consequences. Credit providers who don't follow them risk significant penalties, compensation orders, and license conditions.
How to Use Regulatory Guides in Disputes
When disputing credit file listings or other credit provider actions:
- Identify the relevant guide — which RG covers the conduct in question?
- Document the failure — how did the credit provider fall short of the guidance?
- Cite specific expectations — reference the relevant paragraphs of the guide
- Connect to underlying law — explain how the failure indicates a breach of legislation
- Request appropriate remedy — removal of listing, correction of records, etc.
At Australian Credit Solutions, we routinely reference ASIC regulatory guides in our disputes. Showing that a credit provider failed to meet ASIC's stated expectations adds weight to challenges and demonstrates that our arguments are grounded in regulatory standards, not just opinion.