Planner’s actions no excuse for super fund member’s insurance lapse

The fact that a financial planner filled in a superannuation fund application form and associated insurance documentation on behalf of a client did not absolve the client of responsibility when he lost insurance cover, according to a determination by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT).

Dealing with a complaint which could have implications for the Government’s changes to insurance inside superannuation, the Tribunal noted that the superannuation fund member had suffered an injury but because he had not maintained fund contributions he had no total and permanent disability (TPD) cover.

On the question of the role financial planner, the SCT determination noted that the complainant had conceded he had signed an application form for superannuation fund membership “but contends the financial planner filled out the forms on his behalf and failed to give him the opportunity to complete the forms in his own time”.

Related News:

“If indeed this did occur, then it is a matter that the complainant should raise with the financial planner,” the determination said.

The SCT had been told that the complainant had joined the superannuation fund in February, 2003 but that the superannuation fund received the last superannuation guarantee contribution from the employer in April, 2004 with the fund writing to the complainant in March, 2014 to inform him the balance of his account was insufficient to pay insurance charges.

It was told that a further letter was sent to the complainant in April, 2014 informing him of insufficient funds and then again in May that year telling him his insurance cover had been cancelled.

The SCT was told that the complainant suffered an injury rendering him unable to work in June, 2014.

The Government had moved to make insurance inside superannuation opt-in for members aged under 25 or with account balances below $6,000.



Recommended for you




Yes, it's always someone else's fault. Failure to take personal responsibility has become rampant under default super since 1991.

Sorry but I am struggling to understand what this has to do with the adviser at all. It smells of a client who was fully informed of the cover lapsing, who at a later date decided I actually needed the cover and wants to blame anyone else other than themselves. Where has personal accountability gone?

If the adviser had " over recommended " the level of cover the member required at the time of joining the fund and the member had maintained the account balance to fund the insurance premiums and then received a large lump sum benefit payment from the insurance, would the same member be blaming the adviser for recommending and implementing too much insurance cover??...........of course not.
But when they have not taken the responsibility to act on multiple notifications and warnings direct from the very super fund that holds their insurance it is the advisers fault ???
The completion of the forms is not an issue whatsoever unless there was a non disclosure matter.
If the forms had been left to this particular member to complete based on their obvious lack of care to documentation, it would have been most likely the insurance may never have been implemented in the first place, leaving the member not covered at all for the 11 year period between 2003 and 2014.
This is simply out of control on all levels....disgraceful.

Add new comment