The Banking Code Compliance Committee (BCCC) is a banking industry-funded and controlled body that oversees compliance with the industry-created Code of Practice.

The industry insists the code has the "weight of law" because it is approved by a regulator (ASIC) inserted into contracts and then watched over by the BCCC.

There's not many people that examine this facet of regulation because, as you can tell from the many caveats above, it's hard to take too seriously.

It's not that the BCCC aren't trying hard or is not staffed by competent serious people doing their best for banking customers.

It's just that the body has to beg for powers from the industry peak body run by the members it's meant to be watching over - and has been knocked back when asking for more power.

So fascinating to see that twice in less than a month the BCCC has used the most substantial sanction it has.... actually naming the bank that did the wrong thing.

ANZ was sanctioned for not stopping or refunding fees for deceased estates, as well as not responding to representatives of deceased estates within the required timeframe.

Despite first identifying the issues in early 2022, ANZ took over a year to implement solutions and then nearly two years to start paying customers back, something it only expects to finish this month.

(This happened last week when I was on leave).

Chair of the BCCC, Ian Govey AM, noted the seriousness of the breaches.

“The decision to name ANZ for its non-compliance reflects the seriousness of its Code breaches... Naming a bank is a sanction that we reserve for the most serious and systemic breaches.

“The significance of the deficiencies in ANZ’s compliance frameworks was deeply concerning. Its non-compliance warranted such a sanction".

All sounds pretty tough.

The grim hilarity of this situation is exposed when you follow the link.

ANOTHER bank has done exactly the same things as ANZ. Who are they? You'll never know.

Welcome to self-regulation.