The IDR appears to be a multipurpose vehicle for improving both the quality of advice, and the quality of delivering the service upon which the advice is communicated.
Take the following example: a client was advised from the past on suitable risk coverage with appropriate research done in line with BID structure to ensure appropriate advice was recommended and implemented.
However, the 'quality of delivering the service' upon which the advice was delivered, also included a system to ensure suitable communication with regard to premium renewals.
The 'system' in place by the principal of this AFSL consisted of being notified by the client if there was a problem with anything to do with the premium renewal or the present UW loading changes. As you can imagine, this 'system' relied 100% upon the client to notify the principal - in a timely matter so as to action the problem before the expiry deadline the insurance company had imposed if the problem had not been corrected - and resulted in a lapsed policy which formed the cornerstone of his risk strategy.
Underwriting gone, pre-existing medical history no longer covered, it was a mess.
The client complained, and under the new IDR regime, this would form a valid complaint to which ASIC may even choose to follow up with, at least on the Standard 12 of the Code of Ethics, in that suitable management was not adhered to.
What caused this problem? Ultimately a failure by the principal to:
1/ document a process to mitigate this type of risk under the Client Management strategy
2/ a resistance against engaging a tech response to build reporting to make Standard 12 in this instance a lot easier to manage
3/ ultimately, relying upon the client to notify the principal if there was a problem, noting that the principal had also received notification of this, but it got lost, or may have simply been ignored at the time in favour of more 'pressing' priorities to attend to.