The regulator changed; the remedy route still matters
On 1 July 2026, New Zealand’s Financial Markets Authority (FMA) took over regulatory responsibility for the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) from the Commerce Commission. The Commission’s transfer page says its active CCCFA investigations, most active litigation, relevant lender data and credit-market information passed to the FMA. That transfer applies to the regulatory oversight of consumer credit, including loans, credit cards and covered buy-now-pay-later products.
A borrower may still need two different doors. The FMA investigates and supervises conduct that may breach financial-services law. If you want a refund, fee reduction, contract change or compensation in your own case, Consumer Protection New Zealand says to start with the lender and then use its free financial dispute resolution scheme. It expressly says the FMA cannot obtain remedies for individuals. Reporting a pattern to the FMA can matter, but it does not replace a claim through the lender or dispute scheme.
This is the practical gap in the 1 July headline. “The FMA is now the consumer credit regulator” is true. “Every loan complaint should go only to the FMA” is wrong and could send a borrower seeking a personal remedy to the wrong place.
What the FMA took over
The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2026 enabled the move. The Commerce Commission confirms the transfer date and says people should contact the FMA for matters relating to the CCCFA or for potential fair-dealing breaches involving a financial service or product, including a credit contract. That includes misleading or deceptive conduct. The old version of this guide said the Commerce Commission retained lending-related Fair Trading Act jurisdiction and that misleading credit advertising should go there. The Commission’s current direction does not support that advice.
An existing loan did not vanish on 1 July. Its contract and the borrower’s underlying CCCFA rights continue. The transfer changed which authority supervises the credit conduct. The Commission says the FMA took on active CCCFA investigations and most active litigation, so a pre-transfer complaint is not automatically orphaned. If you already gave evidence to the Commission and need a case update, keep your reference number and contact the FMA to confirm the handling of that matter.
The Companies Office licensing guidance explains how consumer-credit provider licensing replaced the old certification route. A lender’s licence or register listing helps you check who is providing credit, but it does not guarantee that a particular loan or fee is fair. The previous article called about 450 lenders “non-bank lenders” and set out specific penalties without a sound source. Those claims have been removed; neither describes the route an individual borrower should take to resolve a dispute.
If you want money back, start with the lender
Write to the lender’s complaints team. Identify the loan or account, the fee or decision you question, the date and amount, and what you want changed. For example, you might dispute a fee you say was not disclosed, request a refund of overcharged interest, or seek a more affordable repayment arrangement. Attach relevant statements and the agreement, and keep a copy of your message and the lender’s reply. Consumer Protection’s complaint guide recommends being explicit that this is a complaint and recording the outcome in writing.
If the lender cannot resolve it, take the matter to its financial dispute resolution scheme. Every lender and other retail financial-service provider must belong to one. The schemes are free and independent. They can investigate certain complaints about loans, fees, lending decisions, hardship applications and debt collection; possible outcomes include reduced amounts owed, refunded fees or interest, contract changes and compensation. You can find the scheme in your contract, on the lender’s site or in the lender’s Financial Service Providers Register entry. Consumer Protection also lists the four approved schemes and explains how to locate the right one.
You may report the same facts to the FMA when they suggest a wider regulatory breach, such as repeated misleading disclosures across many borrowers. The FMA may investigate or act against the provider. Its process serves the public enforcement role; the dispute scheme is the place to seek a decision about your own financial remedy. You do not need to wait for a regulatory investigation before asking the lender or its scheme to resolve your case.
Example: a disputed car-loan fee
Suppose a borrower’s contract lists a $450 establishment fee, a $15 monthly account fee and one $35 late fee. Over a 12-month period the listed fees add to $665 before interest: $450 + (12 × $15) + $35. This is an arithmetic example, not a finding that those fees are lawful, unlawful or “reasonable.” The CCCFA places rules on disclosure, interest and fees; the Consumer Protection explanation of the CCCFA sets out the borrower rights that may be relevant.
If the borrower thinks an account fee was not disclosed or was calculated incorrectly, they can ask the lender to explain and refund it. If the lender refuses, the dispute scheme can consider the records and the requested remedy. If the borrower also sees the same issue across several accounts, the evidence can be reported to the FMA. The two routes answer different questions: “What should happen to my loan?” and “Is the lender systematically complying with the law?”
Illustrative 12-month loan-fee total
The monthly charge deserves attention because it compounds in plain sight. At $15 per month it totals $180 over one year, $360 over two years and $540 over three years, before any interest effect. These figures are just multiplication using the hypothetical fee. They show why a small-looking charge merits checking against the signed contract and the lender’s disclosure.
How a hypothetical $15 monthly fee accumulates
When your complaint predates the transfer
A loan made before July 2026 may give rise to a complaint after the transfer. There is no general “old loan goes to the Commerce Commission, new loan goes to the FMA” split. The Commerce Commission says the FMA took over active CCCFA investigations and most active litigation, and directs consumers to the FMA for CCCFA and credit-related fair-dealing matters after 1 July. The timing of conduct may matter to an investigation, but you should not assume an older loan lacks recourse.
For an individual outcome, the lender and its free dispute scheme remain the practical route. Give them the old agreement, the relevant statements and the dates of the conduct. If you reported it to the Commission before the handover, include the old case reference when contacting the FMA. If you are in financial hardship, tell the lender promptly and ask about a variation; a regulator transfer does not suspend a borrower’s ability to request help.
A short decision guide
Use the lender first when you want a charge explained, money returned, a repayment plan or a contract corrected. Use the lender’s free dispute scheme when the lender has not resolved that personal complaint. Report to the FMA when you suspect a CCCFA breach, misleading financial-service conduct or a wider pattern that calls for regulatory attention. These steps can overlap. Consumer Protection’s financial complaints guide is the current official route map and explains what each body can and cannot do.
The most useful first document is not a press release about the transfer. It is your loan agreement paired with your statements and a clear written account of the issue. Those records let the right body decide the concrete question in front of it.
