Skip to main content

External Dispute Resolution (EDR)

EDR refers to independent dispute resolution services, particularly AFCA, that resolve complaints between consumers and financial firms when internal processes fail to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

Detailed Explanation

External Dispute Resolution (EDR) provides consumers with access to independent, impartial adjudication of disputes with financial service providers when Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) doesn't achieve a satisfactory outcome. In Australia, AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority) is the EDR scheme for insurance and other financial services. EDR is free for consumers, while financial firms pay membership and case fees. You can access EDR if: the insurer's IDR response is unsatisfactory; the insurer doesn't respond within required timeframes (generally 30 days); or the insurer issues a deadlock letter stating they won't change their position. AFCA can make binding determinations on insurers (but not consumers) and award compensation up to $1,094,000 for insurance disputes (2024-25). The EDR process involves submitting your complaint with supporting documentation, the insurer providing their response, and an AFCA case manager reviewing all evidence and making a determination based on legal principles, relevant codes of practice, industry standards, and fairness. EDR is designed to be accessible without requiring legal representation, though some consumers choose to use lawyers or advocates.

Common Misconceptions

  • EDR doesn't require a lawyer - AFCA is designed to be accessible for consumers representing themselves, though legal assistance is permitted
  • EDR determinations are binding on the financial firm but not on you - if dissatisfied with AFCA's decision, you can still pursue legal action
  • EDR is not the same as court - AFCA considers what's fair in the circumstances, not just strict legal rights, and can award different outcomes than a court might

Real-World Examples

  • AFCA overturned an insurer's denial of a total permanent disability claim, finding the medical evidence clearly supported the claim despite the insurer's contrary assessment

  • A dispute over whether storm damage was covered by home insurance was resolved by AFCA, which found the policy wording ambiguous and ruled in the consumer's favor

  • AFCA awarded $50,000 compensation for an insurer's unreasonable delay in assessing an income protection claim, in addition to the claim payout itself

Ready to protect your future?

Get a personalized insurance quote tailored to your needs.