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”.

“He told the committee that ‘I made it clear that I was not a financial planner and that our services were limited to presenting her with investment options that were based on her description of her needs’.”

The committee said that a member cannot escape membership obligations by saying “I was providing advice in a different manner.”

It found the member guilty.

“The committee had taken into account the adviser’s representation that he is financially impecunious, his marriage had failed, his house had been sold by mortgagee sale and he had been forced to sell his advisory business.

He is currently working for wages with a company and the committee saw “no sound reason for levying a fine”.

It also declined to publish his name: “In the circumstances of this case the committee considers the member should be appropriately penalised but not to the extent that his livelihood will be impaired. Publication of the member’s name was likely to do that.”

It said the adviser should be entitled to earn a living working for another industry participant, but he should be required to be supervised.

It ordered the member; be censured, pay costs of $25,575 and is supervised.

It also ruled he is not to “provide financial planning or investment advice unless he has obtained and proves to the Institute the relevant qualification as per the Institute’s or statutory requirements”.