FSP top ups maturity value after Ombud finds investor was not properly advised
The complainant was aggrieved because he received R470 000 from the R700 000 put into an investment plan with income.
The contract went through 10 iterations between July 2019 and March 2020, with the term ‘infectious and contagious diseases’ variously in or out.
Read moreThe complainant was aggrieved because he received R470 000 from the R700 000 put into an investment plan with income.
The Authority should have conducted its own investigation and not relied solely on information provided by the insurer, the Tribunal says.
The FAIS Ombud issues a determination after the FSP fails to follow through on its undertaking to settle the claim.
‘A key individual is not only responsible to oversee the categories of financial services for which he is licensed, but he bears an oversight role in relation to the FSP generally.’
The complaint arose because the policyholders were under the impression the new policy had retroactive cover.