Cranky super fund member told to pursue his planner

The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) has suggested a superannuation fund member should directly pursue a financial planner who provided a “slideshow” detailing insurance arrangements inside of superannuation which ultimately proved to be wrong.

In doing so, the SCT rejected a complaint by the superannuation fund member who had relied upon the contents of the financial planner’s slideshow to pursue a claim for temporary salary continuance (TSC) relating to an injury he suffered while not at work.

The financial planner was retained by the employer sponsor of a group superannuation scheme, but the planner was not an agent of the insurer.

Related News:

The tribunal was told that shortly after the superannuation fund member had started work for the employer, he attended the financial planner’s slideshow which demonstrated the insurance benefits the employer had arranged “by virtue of the complainant being a member of the employer’s group cover arrangements with the insurer”.

It was told the slideshow represented to the member that the insurer provided TSC cover for the two-year period, paying 75 per cent of salary “not just at work”.

However, the insurer said that the representations made in the slideshow were neither originated nor approved by the insurance company and that the planner was not an agent of the insurer.

Dealing with the issue, the SCT said it accepted that neither the trustee nor the insurer were responsible for the financial planner's actions.

“The tribunal accepts the insurer had not endorsed the slideshow's content. It follows from this factual conclusion of the tribunal's that to the extent the complainant maintains the financial planner's slideshow misled him into paying for the more expensive insurance option, inclusive of TSC, then the complainant should pursue that aspect directly with the financial planner,” the SCT determination said.




Related Content

Planner super competence questioned

The competence of financial planners to provide appropriate advice around superannuation has been identified as an area of concern by two offshore aca...more

Morrison cites planners on fairness of BEAR

Bank executives caught up in the Government’s Bank Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) are simply being treated the same way as financial planner...more

Planners struggling under regulatory burden says FPA

The cost of regulation risks strangling small financial advice firms in circumstances where, in the near future one piece of personal financial advice...more

Author

Comments

Comments

Come on Mike - for the sake of just a couple of extra facts, we'd know if this article was important, or just a space filler. Who were the Insurer, and Super fund? What was the Adviser relationship to the Super fund (self employed adviser, or Industry Fund employed adviser), and did the Adviser provide a General Advice warning before starting the slideshow?

Long Term Cynic, FYI the SCT does not publish the name of the fund, the insurer or the complainant. All the other detail is actually in there. But thanks for your interest.

Thanks Mike, that tidbit has probably been in 100s of previous MM reports about SCT. I'll remember for the future that SCT reports are worth about as much as General Advice :)
Humbly yours LTC.

An Risky might be able to help me out. I'm showing my lack of insurance knowledge here... but the IP cover with the employer super fund..., seems you were not covered for accidents outside of work, only accidents directly related to or incurred whilst working. Is this standard in employer insurance coverage and or industry super fund coverage. That would have to be a useless policy would it not? Talk about having to read the fine print and how on earth would average Mr Consumer noticed that? I can understand the STC outcome but surely if he'd proceeded on his own he'd have to download or read the PDS somewhere and therefore the planner is only partly to blame.

One explaination may be the "at work" clause. ie the cover itself is void if the person is not in paid employment and super ontributions being made by employer to the fund. It is unclear whether he was employed at the time he had the "non work related" injury.

thanks Dank. possibly maybe.

Add new comment