Image
Icon

Directory

IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconBenefit Administrators & Investment Managers
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconEmployee Benefits Consultants
IconFinancial Planners
IconIndependent Principal Officer
IconIndependent Trustees
IconOmbud
IconPension Fund Adjudicator
IconPension Fund Trustee Liability Insurance
IconPension Fund Trustee Training
IconPublications
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconRetirement Advice
IconRetirement Funds registered by the FSB
IconRetirement Products
IconSocial Grants (Government)
IconTrust Establishment & Management
IconWellness Programs
Image
  Subscribe To »

Fais Ombud rules against complainant in Sharemax case

Published

2017

Fri

20

Jan

 

The Afrikaans saying “Slim vang sy baas” is very apt with regards to a recent Ombud determination in which, for once, the adviser was not held liable for a client’s loss.

During January 2012, two complaints were filed with the Ombud’s office against the respondent. The complaints arose from investments made by complainant in a Sharemax syndication. The basis of the complaints was that the respondent advised the complainant to invest in high risk schemes that were incompatible with his personal circumstances as a pensioner.

During July 2009, the complainant invested an amount of R200 000 in a Sharemax scheme. A year later, in July 2010, the complainant invested a further amount of R300 000 in the same syndication scheme. The complainant states that he specifically sought the respondent’s assistance, based on their relationship, going back eight years. Prior to these two investments, which are the subject of this complaint, complainant had made seven investments into various Sharemax property syndications, over a period of five years, with the assistance of respondent.

In his response, the adviser indicated that the complainant had approached Sharemax directly to make the 2010 investment, because of the mistaken belief that the commission payable to respondent would come from his capital investment. The complainant completed the application form for shares at the offices of Sharemax, and only consulted with the respondent two days later as he required the respondent’s signature on the documentation.

According to the respondent, the complainant was so satisfied with his previous investments that he, of his own accord, opted to make the last investment with Sharemax.

In conclusion, the respondent indicated that he regarded the complainant to be greedy. He noted in his response:

“Om 75 jaar oud te wees, gee jou nie die reg om te lieg soos ‘n tande-trekker nie.”

Concerning the evidence, the Ombud states:

“The case presented to this Office is a hodgepodge of contradictory statements. There is a material dispute of fact as to whether complainant was in fact persuaded by respondent to continue investing in Sharemax.”

“Complainant’s version made no reference to his visit to Sharemax’s office to make the investment of 2010, nor does it include his interactions with a Mr Coetzee who was allegedly a consultant employed by Sharemax.”

“Parties making use of the Office to resolve disputes are expected to assist the Office by providing facts at their disposal, regardless of whether a particular aspect may not be favouring their version. That complainant chose not to deal with respondent’s allegations, which means that the Office cannot be of any further assistance in the matter.”

“This leads me to conclude that the question whether respondent rendered financial services to complainant would be best suited to oral evidence and cross examination in order to arrive at the truth.”

“In the premises, I find that it would be more appropriate that the complaint be dealt with by a Court, as provided for in Section 27 (3) (c) of the FAIS Act.”

I, in turn, find this quite surprising, to say the least. The client obviously lied, and therefore the complaint should have been dismissed.

Please click here to download the Ombud's decision. 

 
Source: Paul Kruger: Moonstone Compliance (Pty) Ltd
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

Unclaimed Pension Benefits - Openings for fraud

Administrators fear that FSB attempts to get fund payouts into the hands of former mineworkers can backfire.     Allan Greenblo, Editorial Director Today’s Trustee       Undoubtedly ...
Read More »

  

How to dodge a downturn

Dr Adrian Saville, Chief Strategist, Citadel   In times of weak economic growth, companies need to be that much smarter to survive and thrive. To understand what is needed to navigate and negotiate changing ...
Read More »

  

Don’t be fooled by the bounce back in commodity-linked investments

Stick with Multinationals that own the world’s most sort after brands   By Marriott, the Income Specialists   In the face of tremendous geopolitical uncertainty, markets in 2016 were ...
Read More »

  

When is a beneficiary a minor for pension benefits?

By Gennel Chettiar, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc. If a right is vested in a child before 1 July 2007, the age of majority of the child is 21 years (not 18 years), including for prescription purposes. ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Short-term »

Advertise Here

Quick Survey »

  Sponsored by
Image
Does your company plan on hiring additional employees in 2017?


|Results »
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Malingering:

Effort by a claimant to continue to receive disability income benefits by pretending continued illness or injury.
More Definitions »

 
 
By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Stoker Risk & ICT (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2017.
All Rights Reserved.
Icon

Advertise

  Icon

eZine

  Icon

Contact IG

Icon

Media Pack

  Icon

RSS Feeds