By John Eccles
I refer to my letter to Biznews on March 26 2015.
I am not a superstitious person in the least but a week ago, on Friday the 13th I received an e mail letter from the FAIS Ombud regarding my complaint submitted on 2 September 2014 and after reading the Ombud’s judgement I was shocked and convinced that this was some sort of bad Friday the thirteenth joke.
It has taken the Ombud about two and a half years to come to the conclusion that they could not come to any judgement against deVere, a financial services company with personnel licensed by the South African FSB. Further more they recommend that I take the matter to court for judgement.
What makes the whole saga so frustrating is that the basics of my complaint was actually quite simple in that Craig Featherby, from deVere Cape Town, a director and my appointed FSB licensed officer made contact with me, offered certain services on a moderate, medium term investment mandate. Fees were however not disclosed and a third party, the unlicensed insurance co. Generali took over my account. Soon after this Craig Featherby disappeared only to resurface with Carrick Wealth. A combination of extremely high fees from Generali, and bad investments have just about wiped out my funds.
Read also: A user’s account: deVere – mis-sold, mis-advised, mal-administered
I would like to point out that at the time as a professional helicopter pilot operating in Africa and other remote parts of the world it was essential for me to have the services of a home based adviser to manage my income earned towards my retirement in a few years.
I have also learned that there were as many as 15 other complaints against deVere submitted to the Ombud, here is the letter. It would be useful to hear from any other victims of deVere in South Africa.
Here is deVere response:
The client elected deVere as a service provider to access certain products, but elected to retain full control over his investments and when he signed his mandate he elected that deVere must obtain instructions from him before entering into a transaction on his behalf.
In addition, he signed an application form for the Generali Professional Portfolio, which specifically excluded the appointment of a portfolio manager.
deVere did not, therefore, act in any way as a portfolio manager to the investments; and eventually all dealings were carried out by the client himself using the Generali Professional Portfolio online platform.
An introductory fee was paid to deVere for the Generali Professional Portfolio product which, properly utilised, would offer the potential for a certain amount of tax protection, access to an overdraft facility and efficient succession planning. No underlying investment decisions were made under deVere’s advice and the client took full control over his investment choices.
