Adviser case ruling controversial cont.

The committee acknowledged the stress, pressure and emotional pain the client suffered from the adviser’s actions.

It said there were differences in the factual assertions made by both parties and it preferred the representations of the complainant in most instances where facts were in dispute.

“Generally, (the adviser) has not been able to refute the representations of the complainant.”

The adviser argued that he made it clear to the complainant that “he was not a financial planner and that a financial plan was not requested as the complainant’s requirement was for fixed interest investments that would provide a regular flow of income over and above what the banks were paying to top up her NZ Super”.