CSLR names and shames companies in new move

To date, 551 claims have been made totalling $54.03 million. The vast majority of the costs come from the wealth sector - with the collapsed Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of E&P Financial Group) having paid more than $36 million across 291 claims.

While several claims come from the broking (credit intermediation) subsector - $898,482 in total claims listed - this is less than 2 per cent of the overall payments.

Among the broking/credit intermediation companies named in this iteration of the list are:

• ACN 151 314 760 Pty Ltd (formerly known 8888 Loan Group Pty Ltd), for one claim totalling $54,050

• Gordon Home Loans Pty Ltd, which paid three claims totalling $112,882

• Centennial Money Pty Ltd, which paid two claims totalling $150,000

• Crossborder Financial Services Pty Ltd, which paid two claims totalling $300,000

• Easyplan, which paid one claim totalling $35,600

• Neil Cato, which paid one claim totalling $150,000

• Think Money Pty Ltd, which paid one claim totalling $150,000

While details of these specific claims have not been disclosed in the list, the CSLR has provided an example of a previous credit intermediation claim that was paid, involving a couple who found themselves in severe hardship.

The couple in their late forties, said a broker who was also a personal acquaintance advised them in 2018 to sell their NSW home and purchase two properties in Queensland with nearly $1 million in loans. By 2020, they complained to AFCA that the broker had given them poor advice and failed to properly consider their financial position. They entered into severe financial hardship and went into arrears despite accessing bank hardship support. In 2023, AFCA awarded them $54,000, which was fully paid out by the CSLR in May 2024.

Companies listed that were asked to pay compensation for credit provision include:

• Equitable Financial Solutions Pty Ltd Credit provision, two claims totalling $300,000

• Ferratum Australia Pty Ltd, four claims totalling $3,265

• Membo Finance Pty Ltd , two claims totalling $11,577

• Ultimate Credit Management Pty Ltd, one claim totalling $500

• Worry Free Finance, one claim totalling $22,001

The list will be updated monthly, outlining the firm name, sub-sector, number of compensation payments and the total amount of compensation paid against each firm.

Speaking of the list, CSLR CEO David Berry said: “Having now been in operation for 18 months, and in consultation with industry associations, it's time to share what we are seeing and highlight the impact these outlying firms have on both the sector and consumers.”

In FY26 the CSLR expects to support over 2,000 people through 1,643 claims totalling $211 million.

PIR response issued

The new list has been published as the CSLR releases two other key documents reflecting on its work.

These include its submission to the Department of Treasury's post-implementation review (PIR) and the 2025 Impact Report.

The PIR submission, informed by the scheme's first nine months of operation, focuses on the scheme's effectiveness, its funding challenges, and recommendations to strengthen its long-term sustainability.

The submission outlines a series of recommendations, informed by practical experience and strategic insight, for the Treasurer’s consideration.

The submission outlines six main areas for change that are considered crucial for making the CSLR more sustainable and effective for victims of financial misconduct:

• Focus Compensation on Capital Loss: The scheme, as a "last resort," should only pay for the money people actually lost (their capital), not other types of damages.

• Improve Funding Access: The scheme needs a better way to get its funding from levies and a larger reserve fund. This would help it manage when a lot of claims come in all at once, or it should be able to borrow from the government if needed.

• Clarify the Payout Cap: The current $150,000 compensation cap needs to be clarified in the law so it definitely applies to the actual individual who is entitled to the money (the "beneficial entitlement").

• Strengthen Insurance Requirements: There should be new rules to ensure that financial and credit businesses (AFS and AC licensees) have professional indemnity insurance that is both adequate to cover claims and affordable for the businesses.

• Streamline Large Firm Failure Complaints: When a very large financial firm fails, the scheme should have a simpler, more cost-effective process to handle the resulting flood of complaints.

• Boost Recovery Powers: The CSLR should have broader legal rights (subrogation powers) to chase down and recover funds from other sources. This includes deducting money a person has already received, such as from insurance payouts or a class action settlement, to help reduce the overall cost of compensation.

The CSLR believes addressing these six areas will significantly improve the scheme's sustainability and provide better outcomes for victims.

These recommendations aim to strengthen the long-term sustainability of the scheme by addressing key challenges and identifying opportunities for meaningful improvement.

“The CSLR looks forward to the outcome of the PIR and remains committed to working collaboratively with government and industry stakeholders," said Berry.

"Our shared goal is to ensure the Scheme continues to meet its legislative obligations, as we balance the impact of levies on industry while serving as a vital support for consumers impacted by financial misconduct."

Meanwhile, the Impact Report details key metrics from the first full year of operation and includes claimant stories to demonstrate the harm of financial misconduct.

CSLR background and funding controversy

The CSLR first launched in 2024, is an independent, not-for-profit body authorised by the Australian government.

Its purpose is to facilitate the payment of up to $150,000 in compensation to consumers who have received a favourable determination from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) but have not been paid by the financial firm responsible due to its insolvency.

The scheme's funding, however, has become a major point of contention due to significant cost blowouts, driven primarily by the collapses of firms like Dixon Advisory and United Global Capital (UGC).

For the 2025–26 financial year, the estimated claims costs for the personal advice subsector were notified to be $67.3 million, which exceeds the legislated annual cap of $20 million that can be levied on that subsector. This breach triggered the option for the Minister for Financial Services to raise a special levy to cover the excess costs, which is estimated at $47.3 million.

The CSLR anticipates that the FY27 levy in respect of personal financial advice will again exceed the $20 million. sub-sector cap

This potential shortfall has led to a consultation on how to fund the excess, considering options such as spreading compensation payments over time, applying a special levy to the primary subsector, or extending the levy to other subsectors.

Industry bodies, particularly the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) and the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia (MFAA), have strongly and repeatedly objected to the idea of the mortgage and finance broking sector being forced to cover shortfalls caused by failings in other subsectors, specifically financial advice.

Both the FBAA and MFAA argue that:

• The integrity of the scheme relies on linking financial responsibility directly to the source of consumer harm.

• Extending the special levy to brokers would be unfair, disproportionate, and constitute "cross-subsidisation," penalising honest businesses for failures in a sector (financial advice) they had no part in.

• Brokers already contribute to the CSLR through the annual levy framework (with the credit intermediation subsector expected to pay $1.8 million in FY26), as well as through ASIC levies, AFCA fees, and professional indemnity insurance.

The FBAA warned that the government risks treating the industry as a “bottomless supply of money.”

The MFAA stressed that the CSLR must operate as a safety net, not a mechanism to shift costs onto unconnected sectors.

[Related: FBAA and MFAA warn CSLR levy risks unfairly penalising brokers]