The woman was unable to prove that she had been given misleading information and, the scheme said, even if she had been, she had not relied on it to her detriment.

The client spoke to her adviser on the phone in August about reducing her life insurance cover to $15,000, to make her premiums more affordable.

The adviser sent a letter and an amendment form for her to sign and an explanation that her premiums would increase when her policy renewed in November.

When she received the letter, she made a complaint because, she said, the adviser had told her the premiums would remain the same for two years.

The adviser denied that.

IFSO’s case manager told the client that it could not assess credibility and had to rely on the evidence available.

“In this situation, [the client] and the adviser presented conflicting evidence about what was said during the telephone call. There was no telephone recording available to assist the case manager to decide what happened and the only documentary evidence was the letter, saying that the premiums would increase in November 2019.

“The case manager was unable to resolve the issue about what was said. The case manager advised the client that, even if she had been able to prove the adviser provided misleading information to her, she was unable to show that she acted in reliance on the information to her detriment, because the letter provided the correct information about whether and when the premiums would increase. The IFSO Scheme could not award compensation for stress or punish the adviser.”