Last week, the FPA announced that Darren Tindall was found to have engaged in “misleading, deceptive, dishonest and fraudulent conduct” to obtain life insurance for a client who was otherwise unlikely to obtain it.
Mr Tindall was an authorised representative of Orange-based Roan Financial Group at the time. The licensee yesterday declined ifa’s request for comment.
The allegations were investigated by FPA’s Conduct Review Commission (CRC), an independent body set up to ensure members adhere to the FPA’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.
According to the CRC’s determination, Mr Tindall had denied any wrongdoing.
The FPA alleged that on 1 November 2013, Mr Tindall made an online application in the name of his client for death and TPD insurances, and submitted incorrect answers to questions asking about the client’s medical history.
“There is no dispute that an online application was made on the afternoon of 1 November 2013. Nor is there any dispute that the application failed to disclose important parts of the client’s medical history, as questions concerning the client’s history of particular conditions were falsely answered no,” the determination states.
“What is disputed is how the application came to be made. The client says she sat in the room with Mr Tindall whilst he made the application; watching him and conversing with him as he did so. Mr Tindall says that did not happen, and that he had no knowledge as to how the application came to be made.”
Mr Tindall had also submitted he was not being given a fair hearing because a particular witness – the one to initiate the complaint against him – had declined to attend a hearing.
The witness had provided a statement and other documents to the FPA, but declined to provide oral evidence on the basis of legal advice received, the CRC said.
“The unwillingness to be available at the hearing, which, in circumstances where a statement has already been made and documents provided, amounts to an unavailability to answer questions, including questions in the nature of cross-examination, is certainly unhelpful for the panel in circumstances where there are a number of contested facts,” the determination states.
“The panel’s ability to make findings to the requisite standard of satisfaction might be hampered. The panel notes that Mr Tindall had been under the supervision of the witness and that Mr Tindall and the witness had also been in dispute on matters other than the complaint.”
A sanction against Mr Tindall is yet to be announced.
The FPA’s so-called “CRC” appears to be a self-styled kangaroo court. If FPA had information adverse to this person, why would they not fulfil all legal and regulatory obligation, by simply passing it onto ASIC – the taxpayer-funded body set up specifically to investigate and discipline on such cases.
It appears the individual has not had the opportunity to defend himself beforehand being publicly “convicted”, which is a bastion of western law.
If ASIC subsequently found the person to be guilty of misbehaviour, FPA could simply protect the integrity of its membership by not offering membership renewal. Surely that would satisfy FPA, rather than run the risk of losing a costly civil court action which costs all FPA members a fortune.
Regardless of the person’s guilt, presumed or otherwise, this is really about the FPA gearing up to be a professional association in a legislative environment where association membership is mandated. In this potential future the right to be an adviser will ultimately rest with the professional body and similar to the AHPRA for doctors – membership suspension/termination also terminates the right to practice. Right now this advisers membership termination has little consequence. Soon it could mean everything. Are we really happy with our professional bodies becoming judge/jury/executioner? I actually like the concept since it addresses the phoenix problem of poor advisers jumping licensees and a body will be faster than the regulator which is massively overstretched in my opinion. However, I have grave concerns about the FPA’s ability to execute. It’s appropriate to have professional associations run by advisers for advisers when it comes to political lobbying and in some cases setting standards but I would be deeply concerned about the ability of either body to run a court.
Michael – that final concern is a good one. The FPA’s Conduct Review Commission operates separate to the board and management, with an independent chair and very robust protocols. As a former FOA board member I can attest to the robustness of their processes and the level of care they take before making a determination.
You are totally correct in terms of the transition that the FPA is making, and it is a healthy one for everyone who desires that Financial Planning be regarded as a profession by the public. In future it will mean everything to be a member of a professional association if you wish to practice as a financial adviser.
As an aside, I am a bit bemused by many of the correspondents and indeed the editorial approach of this site: for so long the FPA copped criticism that it did nothing about its member’s behaviour – now that they have done so they ‘have abandoned adviser’ ? Seriously?
The ASIC register lists Darren Tindall as banned from 8th Jan 2017 for 5 years. Might be more to this story.
This all sounds very strange and impossible to know who is right or wrong. Maybe the “witness” submitted the application under Darren Tindell’s name for example.
What is obvious though is the FPA should not be naming and shaming at this stage. They should have passed the complaint and concerns onto ASIC to investigate first.
Give the FPA’s conduct with the FSC over the LIF and sponsorships from the big end of town they can hardly act as a blameless organisation where corruption is concerned.
A lot of strange things going on there. The client saying they were in an appointment with the adviser and the adviser claiming they have no idea how the application was lodged. And the witness – a supervisor of the adviser who dobbed but then refuses to follow up and attend and be questioned over their reporting. Sounds like inter-office politics and all-out-war.
Linda, how about filling us in on the details of the case? How can anyone comment on such a poorly presented story?
is this the same D Trindall that acted as a Financial PLanner on the Sunshine Coast in the late 1990’s early 2000’s and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to clients? He would now be around late 40’s to 50 years old, and went by the name of Des.
Will ASIC take any action against the licensee that is responsible for training and supervision?
This is a question of ethics, not sure how the licensee and every other adviser who is part of that licensee should be affected. Just like the doctor who is inappropriate with a patient shouldn’t flow that all doctors are sanctioned.