|Table showing ASIC’s 11 serious compliance concerns and Dover’s responses
|ASIC ‘s concerns about Dover||Dover’s response to ASIC’s concern|
|1||Dover’s process for the appointment of representatives is inadequate and in any event is not complied with.||This is not correct. refer to chapter 4 where Dover demonstrates the process for appointing new advisers was adequate and in fact exceeded ASIC’s requirements|
|2||Dover’s arrangements for the monitoring and supervision of representatives are inadequate.
|This is not correct. Refer to chapter 5 where Dover demonstrates its adviser monitoring and supervision processes exceeded ASIC’s requirements.|
|3||The quality of advice provided by Dover representatives is poor. A large proportion of files do not comply with the law. The personal financial advice provided by the Key Person and Responsible Manager (McMaster) and the second in charge of the licence (Tee) fails to comply with the law.
|This is not correct. The reader is referred to chapter 13 where Dover demonstrates the quality of advice provided by Dover advisers is not poor and is above industry averages as measured by ASIC. The reader is refered to chapters 6, 7 & 8 where Dover demonstrates McMaster provided good compliant advice to Dr Amit. The reader is refered to chapters 6, 9 and 10 where Dover shows Tee provided good compl;iant advice to Katrina.|
|4||When adviser misconduct is identified by Dover … Dover fails to take appropriate steps to remediate the client in relation to the advice … provided.||This is not correct. The reader is referred to chapter 11 where where Dover demonstrates it takes appropriate steps to remediate where clients receive certain advices on the termination of an adviser|
|5||A serious misconduct report relating to Dover’s conduct in managing a client complaint was recently received from FOS. FOS has alleged that in the process of managing a client complaint, Dover made implicit threats to the client regarding defamation action, contrary to FOS’ Terms of Reference. Dover is also alleged to have inappropriately released personal information to a third party in breach of privacy obligations and may have also written to Centrelink alleging fraud conduct by the client. The FOS complaint can be found at Appendix 2.||This is not correct. The reader is refered to chapter 21 where Dover demonstrates that FOS failed to report elder abuse and Centrelink fraud and that FOS failed to advise ASIC that reporting elder abuse and Centrelink fraud does not breach the Privacy Act or any other “privacy obligations”.|
|6||When providing ASIC details of adviser remuneration under Notice, Dover misinformed ASIC regarding the origin of certain fees in relation to McMaster. Dover do not appear to differentiate between professional adviser fees (such as tax and legal fees) and advice related fees.“
|This is not correct. This appears to be a another mistake on ASIC. McMasters’ and Terry McMaster did not charge clients for financial planning advice. Therefore there was no faliure to “differentiate between professional adviser fees… and advice related fees” because there were no advice related fees to differentiate. (There were no commissions either: McMaster did not accept commissions.)|
|ASIC’s concerns about Terry McMaster|
|7||ASIC has reviewed 2 files containing advice provided by Terry McMaster. ASIC has failed both files in relation to s961B, s961G and s961J.
|This is a repetition of complaint 3.|
|8||McGrath Nicol reviewed 4 files containing advice provided by Terry McMaster (2 of these were the same as ASIC). McGrath Nicol failed all files in relation to s961B, s961G and s961J.||See above and note Dover applied section 961B(1) for the best interests duty and did not create a checklist under 961B(2). See Chapter 18 for an explanation of why ASIC’s approach to the best interests duty is incorrect.|
|9||Alleged misconduct in relation to Dover is attributable primarily to McMaster. He is the sole director and key person and oversees all aspects of the licensee’s compliance framework. McMaster is involved in all operational aspects of Dover and appears to make all decisions.||See above, and the other chapters in this book. In summary, there was no misconduct by McMaster. Every allegation of misconduct is competently refuted. There was no misconduct.|
|ASIC’s concerns about Florence Tee|
|10||ASIC has reviewed 2 files containing advice provided by Florence Tee. ASIC has comprehensively failed both files in relation to s961B, s961G and s961J.
|This is a repetition of complaint 3. See Chapter 18 for an explanation of why ASIC’s approach to the best interests duty is incorrect.|
|11||McGrath Nicol reviewed 4 files containing advice provided by Florence Tee (2 of these were the same as ASIC). McGrath Nicol failed all files in relation to s961B, s961G and s961J.”||See above