Adviser faces FSCP reprimand over CPD non-compliance

An adviser has received a written reprimand from the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) after failing to meet his CPD requirements.

In its first outcome since June, ASIC detailed an instance of an anonymised relevant provider who failed to comply with his continuing professional development (CPD) requirements.

Financial advisers are required to complete 40 hours annually across technical competence, client care and practice, regulatory compliance and consumer protection, and professionalism and ethics.

The matter was referred to the sitting panel over concerns that the relevant provider had not completed the mandatory 40 hours of CPD during the licensee’s CPD year.

In this case, the sitting panel said it “was satisfied that the relevant provider had contravened s921BA(4) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act, and that it was appropriate to issue a reprimand in the circumstances”.

There have been three prior instances of CPD contraventions that gained the FSCP’s attention in the past, with the most recent in May resulting in two advisers both receiving a reprimand. 

In the case of Mr Q, the panel said that "formal admonishment of the relevant provider, by way of a reprimand, was required. There were no extenuating circumstances, and the relevant provider was tardy in rectifying their outstanding CPD hours”.

The other relevant provider in this instance, Mr X, the FSCP said that he had “rectification of shortfall occurred within reasonable period of time”.

“However, the sitting panel considered that a reprimand was needed to emphasise the importance of CPD to maintaining the standards of the profession, as well as the public’s trust and confidence in the profession,” it added.

An earlier instance in April 2025 saw the panel decide that “no action was warranted because of the extenuating circumstances that led to the non-compliance”.

It stated the relevant provider understood their CPD requirements, had taken action to rectify the breach, and would comply with them in the future.

Prior to this, another relevant provider was also handed down a no action result over a failure to meet their CPD requirements, with the panel believing there were "exceptional circumstances that led to the non-compliance”.