CR399 – Poor service – fairness – compensation


  1. The complainant advised that he transferred a large sum of money to the insurer on a Thursday. He visited a branch of the insurer’s on the same day and was advised that his timing would allow him to purchase units at the “ruling price / rate of the day”, thus the unit price determined on Thursday.
  2. The insurer acknowledged the advice given to the complainant by its consultant, but stated that the advice was unfortunately not correct. Whilst the complainant’s investment was processed on the Thursday before 14h00, the units were purchased the next day (Friday) at a price that was determined at the close of that day (Friday), which was higher than the preceding day.
  3. The insurer referred to the policy, which provides that if the instruction is received before the cut off time of 14h00 and all requirements are met, the instruction will be processed on that business day and the client will receive the unit price of the following business day. In other words, if all the requirements were met by 14h00 on Thursday, the units would only be purchased on Friday.
  4. The insurer further advised that the unit price for a certain day is only determined at the end of business of that day.
  5. The insurer was of the view that the complainant was not treated unfairly, as his investment was processed in the same manner as all other clients who submitted an instruction prior to 14h00 on Thursday.


  1. With regards to the complainant’s request for the insurer to honour the unit price as at Thursday, the office considered its Rule 1.2.4 that states that we must accord due weight to considerations of equity.
  2. However, we found that it would not be fair to require the insurer to provide the complainant with the number of additional units which the complainant’s investment would have purchased at the lower closing unit price as at Thursday. It thus follows that there is no equitable reason why the insurer should pay the money value of the additional units.
  3. The complainant’s claim was dismissed.


  1. In terms of our Rule 3.2.5, this office may award compensation, irrespective of the outcome of the complaint, for material inconvenience, distress or for financial loss suffered by a complainant as a result of the insurer’s error, omission or maladministration.
  2. The insurer unequivocally apologised to the complainant for misinforming him of the processing timeline and offered compensation of R2 000.00.


The complainant accepted the insurer’s offer and the matter was closed.