The Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman dealt with a complaint about products sold to a New Zealand man who then moved to Perth.

In 2011, almost 20 years after the sale, his wife emailed the insurer, wanting to review the plan.

She said the plan listed the financial adviser, but that neither she nor her husband had any contact from him since being in Australia.

In 2013, that adviser's firm became a member of IFSO. The adviser registered as an RFA in 2015.

In August 2016, the insurer notified all members of the plan that its structure was being wound up the next month to comply with the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. It directed queries to financial advisers.

The woman asked the insurer what would happen with the FMCA changes and said she had tried to contact her adviser with no luck. The insurer contacted the adviser, too.

In March the next year, the woman contacted the adviser again. He rang and she then emailed, outlining her dissatisfaction with the lack of contact over the years. She sent her questions about the life insurance in the plan.

Three days later, she asked the financial adviser further questions about the plan, and said she felt she and her husband had “been unfairly disadvantaged in regards to what life assurance actually meant and what impact it would have at the expiry date”.

The financial adviser responded to her that day to say she could “reduce the live cover only to an acceptable cost, and with you maturing the super scheme” and that he could “assure [them they had] not been disadvantaged in any way”.

She responded by email to state she and her husband “believe[d] they [had] been severely disadvantaged” by not receiving the appropriate level of time investment or expertise from the financial adviser.

By the end of the month, they had requested to move to a new financial adviser. Later that year, the complained to IFSO that they had not received acceptable service.

IFSO said both the Financial Advisers Act 2008 and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 set out statutory obligations in respect of the standards required in respect of providing services.

The case manager discussed the case with the financial adviser. He stated he was now retired but the manager said being retired did not exclude the financial adviser from the FAA.

The case manager understood from the financial adviser that he did not offer regular reviews to client or establish if regular reviews of the products they held were necessary.

In particular, he had not reviewed the man's plan since it was first implemented.

"It is standard practice today for a financial adviser to have a system for checking whether clients’ circumstances might have changed and whether the products they have continue to be appropriate for them, unless the clients have specifically agreed that they do not wish that to occur.," IFSO said.

"The case manager also concluded, from the information available, that the financial adviser had not responded to requests for assistance. The case manager considered that while they could be expected to respond immediately while on holiday, professional standards require having an adequate process in place to deal with client requests, particularly where, as was the case here, the matter [the couple] wanted to discuss was a fundamental change in the structure of the plan."

Taking all of the evidence available into account, the case manager concluded that the financial adviser had not met the requirements of s.33 of the FAA or s.28 of the CGA in respect of the service provided. Therefore, IFSO upheld the complaint.

However, the case manager was unable to refund the contributions made to the plan, since they were only “refundable” in the sense of being repaid if the man had passed away prior to the policy’s expiry on March 28, 2017.