Choice calls for higher monetary limit for planner disputes
Consumer group Choice has sought to up the ante on the monetary limit on complaints handled by the Financial Industry Complaints Service (FICS), arguing that it be raised to $280,000 and that the Commonwealth consider imposing the monetary limits itself.
Just days after FICS raised the monetary limit from $100,000 to $150,000 Choice went a step further in arguing that FICS should raise the limit to $280,000, in line with those imposed by the Banking and Financial Services Ombudsman and the Insurance Ombudsman Service.
Choice senior policy officer Elissa Freeman said low monetary limits meant most Westpoint complaints were excluded from FICS consideration.
“If FICS and its members want to remain in touch with the retail investment industry, a limit of $280,000 should be adopted,” Freeman said.
She claimed that too many people were being forced into the legal system to get their complaints heard and that some were being denied any remedy at all.
Freeman also suggested that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission needed to consider whether FICS still met the criteria for approval as an acceptable external dispute resolution (EDR) scheme.
“If schemes are not able to keep up with market developments then the Government should establish monetary limits for financial industry dispute resolution schemes,” she said.
The Financial Planning Association has already argued that the FICS decision to lift the monetary limit will create professional indemnity insurance issues for some financial planners.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
