Former clients of Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services (DASS) have been urged to make a complaint as they may be eligible for compensation under a potential Compensation Scheme of Last Resort.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said clients should make a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) if they believed they had suffered a loss as a result of Dixon Advisory misconduct or their former Dixon Advisory adviser in providing financial advice.
ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings against Dixon Advisory in September 2020 for alleged conflicts, best interest failures and inappropriate advice and its Australian financial services licence was suspended in April 2022.
Complaints needed to be made as soon as possible as complaints would not be accepted once Dixon Advisory’s AFCA membership ceased as it they could only be made against firms which were AFCA members.
Whether the complaints could be progressed would depend upon a number of factors, including the outcome of the administration process, potential class action litigation, as well as whether a CSLR is established and what its scope may be.
However, ASIC warned a compensation outcome for investors was not guaranteed as:
- A CSLR had not yet been established, and so the scheme’s final parameters remained uncertain at this time;
- Dixon Advisory was currently in voluntary administration, and the outcome of the administration process could affect clients’ eligibility to compensation; and
- Whether or not a former client of Dixon Advisory was eligible for compensation would depend on the individual circumstances of the advice that they were given, as well as the scope and operation of a CSLR.
The firm filed for voluntary administration in January 2022.
Comments
Anon? Brian? No comment about this misconduct and impact on clients?
The news regarding the entity is not new and these kind of outcomes no one wants. Clients receive outcomes not in line with expectations, serves to tarnish the good work of many, reduces confidence in the advice profession and demonstrates that impacts from advice can take years to manifest. To use ACFA seems to make sense - the matter is well understood, so I don't have any other comment at this time.
Apologies for the late reply though Hedware. I've been busy trying to understand proposed changes to the reporting obligations for Super Fund Trustees (arguably to reduce transparency) along with the continuing media coverage regarding the valuation methods of unlisted assets.
Do trust you have an opinion on these matters?
Thanks - good points made.
I read Jones' intentions re trustees with disbelief. Same disbelief with some of his other intentions to reduce transparency and to let unqualified to be advisors. Seems to be a one step forward, two steps back assistant minister.
If you need it spelled out Hedware, then here goes...
It was terrible behaviour, that caused harm to clients. It was widely recognised as such at the time by the honest majority of financial planners, and should have been recognised and acted on by a competent regulator. Not unlike Storm Financial. As with Storm, ASIC failed to act in time.
After failing to protect consumers from obvious and isolated sources of harm, ASIC used incidents like these to justify biased and vengeful persecution against all financial planners, including the honest majority. In so doing, they have made it much harder for consumers to access professional advice, and pushed consumers towards harmful unregulated options like crypto spruikers, property speculation, and finfluencers. The net result is even more consumers have been harmed through subsequent bad regulation than were harmed by the regulatory failure to act against obvious and isolated sources of harm in the first place.
Dixons is not proof of the need for even more layers of regulation on top of the layers and layers of existing regulation preventing honest, professional financial planners from helping consumers. (As you and your fellow travellers will no doubt claim). It is proof of the need for a massive overhaul of the regulators.
Thanks - some good points made.
Just pathetic.
Add new comment