A couple who demanded a partial refund of life commissions paid to their new financial adviser have lost a dispute after arguing they were not told about the remuneration arrangement.

They were seeking $15,000 for financial loss, which they said represented a portion of the commission paid to Ccafp Wealth.

The couple said Ccafp Wealth did not provide the commissions information after it acquired the rights to their life polices in September 2022.

They had taken out their life, total and permanent disability and income protection policies in 2011 through their former adviser, identified as Mr J in an Australian Financial Complaints Authority ruling.

They said the lack of disclosure from Ccafp Wealth denied them the opportunity to either stop the commissions or choose to have the account managed elsewhere.

The couple said they found out the advisory group was getting commissions only after they asked their accountant to review the policies. They said after the accountant switched off the commissions in August last year, their monthly premiums were reduced by $400.

They said the advisory group received commissions on their policies without providing a service in exchange and did not obtain their consent for the arrangement.

But AFCA says the company did not have a legal obligation to inform the couple about the commissions arrangement, because it was disclosed in the 2011 statement of advice provided by Mr J.

“Though the complainants’ files were transferred to different financial firms over time, this did not create an obligation to redisclose the commission, nor did it create a requirement to provide ongoing advice,” the authority said. “Given the financial firm has not breached any obligation it had to the complainants, it would not be fair to require it to compensate the complainants.”

AFCA also notes the company told the couple it was becoming responsible for their file, in an email to them in August 2022.

“In addition, the complainants’ insurance premium summary for their 2022-23 tax return lists the financial firm as their financial adviser,” the AFCA ruling said.

“I am satisfied these communications were sufficient to make the complainants aware the financial firm was responsible for their file, and that the product issuer regarded it as the complainants’ financial adviser for the purposes of their policies.”

Click here for the ruling.