Bema Engineering SSAS (PO-644)

Ombudsman’s Determination

 Complaint Summary

Mr and Mrs E’s complaint against CAM, MLA and MLT concerns the investment advice they received from CAM, MLA and MLT:

• CAM, MLA and MLT incorrectly informed Mr and Mrs E that they could hold certain machinery as assets; and
• CAM, MLA and MLT delayed in rectifying the matter.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against CAM, MLA and MLT because:-

• CAM, MLA and MLT should have been put on enquiry from 8 August 2006 that the advice they had given Mr and Mrs E in relation to holding certain machinery as Scheme assets was incorrect. Mr and Mrs E relied on this advice and have incurred a tax liability.
• The solution to the problem proposed by CAM, MLA and MLT was unreasonable and in any event did not prevent Mr and Mrs E from incurring a tax liability as a result of the information and services provided to them.
• The delay in resolving the matter constitutes maladministration and has resulted in Mr and Mrs E having had to make significant efforts to resolve the matters themselves.