In a decision released today, the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee said the unnamed financial adviser was an AFA whose work focused on pension transfers from the UK.

The FMA's complaint related to four client files, for people who had engaged him to provide services related to moving their money to New Zealand.

The UK pension transfers had a "UK end" and a "New Zealand end" the FMA said, and the adviser's code obligations applied at each. But the adviser argued the UK end did not fall within his scope of service. The FADC backed him on that point.

The FMA claimed the adviser's primary and secondary disclosure documents, scope of engagement and statement of advice were inconsistent and unclear in recording what he was to do, were not always provided in a timely way, or at all, failed to show an analysis of whether the clients should transfer their pensions to New Zealand, and contained advice in relation to the New Zealand end of the transfer that was the same for each client.

The adviser's lawyer argued that the absence of written evidence of compliance was not the same thing as non-compliance. But the adviser admitted that he had breached the requirement to keep adequate written information about his service.

The FMA also said the fee he received, 5% of the value of the pension fund transferred, created a conflict of interest. The FADC said it was preferable that "more not less" information was given about potential conflicts but the code required management of the conflict as a minimum standard. "The minimum expectation for such management is full and open disclosure, which occurred."

It said he was not competent to provide the service he was offering. The FADC said it had insufficient evidence to come to that conclusion but agreed that the adviser's reporting to clients was not done in a timely fashion.

None of the clients complained about the adviser's service.

The adviser was found to have breached code standard six – behaving professionally - and 12 – keeping information about personalised services for retail clients - in relation to a pension transfer service and insurance advice.

A complaint was referred to the FADC on November 30 last year, alleging the adviser had breached code standards one, two, three, five, six, seven, eight, nine and 12.

That covers putting clients first, not bringing the industry into disrepute, using the term “independent”, conflicts of interest, behaving professionally, agreeing the scope and nature of the service, suitability of advice and record-keeping.

It was decided in December that a hearing was necessary.

Name suppression has been granted until a decision is made on the penalties that may be applied.

Unlike the handful of previous cases heard by the FADC, no details were released publicly about this hearing.

There are no further referrals to the FADC at this stage.