IFA continues name and shame regime; suspends member
The Institute of Financial Advisers has continued along its path of "naming and shaming" advisers, and has placed Timaru-based member Neville Cant on an interim suspension for failing to respond to queries over several complaints.
Wednesday, December 9th 2009, 6:30AM 
4 Comments
by Paul McBeth
Chief executive David Hutton said, in his latest newsletter, three "seemingly unrelated" complaints about Cant had been made to the IFA. Cant failed to respond to the complaints, which are series in nature and warrant investigation and possible action, and his membership to the association was put on interim suspension until he contacts the IFA.
Hutton said it was important to note that Cant has not been found guilty of any of the allegations, and that "the provision is to prevent delay in dealing with complaints."
"We wanted to make sure the public are aware" after Cant failed to respond within the IFA's timeframe, said president Lyn McMorran. "We can't afford to ignore it."
In May, the IFA named two advisers were named after they pleaded guilty to breaching the industry body's Code of ethics and professional conduct over investments in finance companies, and fined a combined $67,000 to cover the costs of the disciplinary procedures.
McMorran said the matter is now up to Cant, and if he wants to regain his membership to the association he will need to respond to the allegations.
Though the IFA cannot prevent him from practising, McMorran does not think the suspension will be taken lightly by clients or regulators.
"I don't think it will be viewed very well when he applies for Authorised Financial Adviser status," she said.
The IFA's "name and shame" regime was put under scrutiny by rival association Professional Advisers Association earlier this year, with then chief executive Dave McMillan saying he had fielded calls that the initiative had left advisers "extremely exposed."
Paul is a staff writer for Good Returns based in Wellington.
| « Capital protection kicks in | Sovereign takes regulation bull by the horns » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
If the complainants are so sure of their case, let them take him to a court of law - at least Mr. Cant will have the benefit of his PI policy to meet his defence costs.
I suppose the IFA could have waited for the criminal charges to be dealt with by the District Court before taking action. However you can just imagine the outcry if the IFA did nothing.
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
If the industry is to have any teeth, then it must be recognized as having consequences for those who are unwilling to meet its standards.