FincomplaintIQ Beta

Describe a complaint. The finder compares it with published AFCA determinations and shows how similar complaints were decided, and why.

Private preview

Compare a complaint with how AFCA has decided similar ones.

Describe a complaint in plain English. FincomplaintIQ compares it with 1,397 published AFCA determinations and shows how similar complaints were decided, the likely outcomes and awards, and why.

Designed for complaints, IDR and legal teams at financial firms. Created by Serhat Saylak.

Example output · illustrative only
Leans toward the firmMedium confidence

A customer disputes a storm claim declined as “wear and tear”.

38%
chance the complainant succeeds at least partly, from 100 simulated decisions
In full 14In part 24For the firm 62
What AFCA might award across the 100 runs
nil$5k$10k$15k+
Export as PDF12 similar determinations cited
1,397
published AFCA determinations, each read and summarised into a searchable record
250+
financial firms: banks, insurers, lenders, super trustees and advice licensees
100
simulated decisions in every analysis, with AFCA's compensation caps applied
PDF
report of each analysis, with every chart and the determinations relied on
  1. 1Describe the complaintin plain English
  2. 2It finds the closest determinationsand reads them against the facts
  3. 3Get the analysison screen and as a PDF

What an analysis shows

Illustrative examples

Each analysis simulates AFCA deciding the complaint 100 times, using how similar determinations were actually decided and what AFCA actually awarded, with its compensation caps applied.

#1#10#20202420252026
Precedent mapThe closest determinations, by date and similarity, coloured by outcome.
AFCA capnil$5k$10k$15kmiddle 80% of awards
Award estimatesLikely awards for each head of loss, with AFCA's caps applied.
0%50%100%offer $6k13 of 100 runs pay more$0$5k$10k$15k$20kchance AFCA awards at least…
Settlement offersHow often AFCA's award would be higher than a proposed offer.
ShortMediumLongVery lowTier 0Tier 0Tier 0LowTier 1Tier 15Tier 2MediumTier 2Tier 214Tier 33HighTier 3Tier 42Tier 4SevereTier 4Tier 4Tier 4
Non-financial lossGraded on AFCA's impact-and-duration approach.
Expert report on the cause of damage16–54%Inspection only from the ground23–41%Recent repairs, with invoices21–37%Time taken to decide the claim26–34%current estimate 29%
What matters mostHow far each deciding factor moves the likely outcome.
PDF
PDF reportThe full analysis, charts and citations in one document.

Across the whole library

Illustrative examples
0%50%100%34’1941’2055’2162’2270’2388’2497’25120’26outcomes each year · number of determinations on top
Trends over timeHow outcomes have shifted, year by year.
’21’22’23’24’25’26Claim denied283130262930Claim delays625864606661Hardship404447434543Scams222025313641Credit listing302729252827% decided at least partly for the complainant
Outcomes by issueWhere complainants succeed more or less often.
average 49%Firm A44%Firm B32%Firm C61%sided with the complainant · bar = likely range
Firm comparisonsHow firms compare, with a likely range for each.

Access

The site is in private preview while it's being tested, and access is by invitation. If you've been sent an access link, open it, or enter your code here.

No code?

Contact the creator, Serhat Saylak.

LinkedIn ↗

Good to know

Is this legal advice?

No. It's general information and research based on published determinations. Decisions on a complaint remain with the firm, under its own IDR process, with legal advice where needed.

Is it connected to AFCA?

No. It's an independent project and isn't operated or endorsed by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. It works from the determinations AFCA publishes.

Can it say what AFCA will decide?

No. AFCA decides each complaint on what's fair in all the circumstances and isn't bound by earlier decisions. The finder shows how AFCA has approached similar complaints and the range of outcomes that suggests.

What happens to the details entered?

The description is sent to Anthropic's Claude AI to produce the analysis and isn't stored on this site's server. Saved analyses stay in the user's own browser. Customer names, account numbers and other personal information should be left out.

About the site, how it works and its limits →

Include the product, what the firm did or didn't do, dates, amounts, what you've asked for, and anything the firm has said in response.