CPD non-compliance in the spotlight with fifth FSCP outcome

In its second action this month, an adviser has received a written reprimand from the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) for failing to meet his CPD requirements.

Marking the fifth such case this year, ASIC detailed an instance of a relevant provider, anonymised as Mr W, who failed to comply with their 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 for the CPD year ending 31 December 2024.

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”.

On the same day as Mr W, another relevant provider, referred to as Mr M, was found by the panel to have breached his CPD requirements resulting in a written reprimand.

May also saw two more advisers – Mr Q and Mr X – receive written reprimands from the FSCP over CPD breaches.

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”.

On 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.

Another instance in April 2025 saw the panel decide that “no action was warranted because of the extenuating circumstances that led to the non-compliance”, stating that 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, a similar instance heard by the panel also resulted in a no-action result over a failure to meet CPD requirements, with the panel believing there were “exceptional circumstances that led to the non-compliance”.