SCT determination absolves funds on planner mistakes

10 May 2016
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Superannuation funds cannot be held responsible for correcting mistakes by financial planners which result in disadvantage to members.

That is the bottom line of a recent determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) which held that a superannuation fund did not have to have to compensate a member who lost a portion of his Age Pension due to an inadvertent mistake involving the rollover of a Term Allocated Pension (TAP) to another fund.

The tribunal was told that the rollover of partial funds held in the fund invalidated the Complainant's 50 per cent Asset Test Exemption (ATE) from Centrelink which ultimately resulted in a permanent reduction of the complainant's and his wife's pension entitlements.

As a result of the Centrelink decision, the complainant claimed the fund had failed in its duty of care to advise him of the financial consequences to his social security pension, if he rolled over only part of the funds invested with the fund. He therefore sought compensation for the present value of the lost future pension benefit.

However, the fund argued that it was not the role of the trustee to inform members of any social security implications of withdrawing funds from a TAP and it pointed out that the request for the rollover had been made by a financial adviser.

It was also pointed out that the withdrawal instruction form contained an explicit warning that there could be income support consequences from the rollover and that the member should seek financial advice if this was relevant. The warning indicated there was no undertaking on the part of the trustee to provide such advice.

The SCT determination said that, in these circumstances, both the complainant and his financial adviser when completing the form were put on notice about there being possible implications from a rollover which required advice from bodies other than the trustee.

The determination said the tribunal was satisfied from the evidence provided that there was sufficient warning to the complainant to obtain independent financial advice about the consequences of rolling over his TAP in the fund into another fund and that it (the superannuation fund) had no general duty or obligation to do more.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

11 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

11 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

11 months 1 week ago

Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Co...

1 day 15 hours ago

Demand from institutional investors was the main driver of growth in Australia’s responsible investment (RI) market in 2023, as the industry continued to gain momentum....

1 day 15 hours ago

In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges....

1 day 16 hours ago