A former Sanlam employee was debarred as a broker after the Financial Services Tribunal ( FST) found that he acted dishonestly by providing misleading information when insuring his brother’s house.
Ahmed Arbee was employed by Sanlam Life Insurance Limited as a broker on contract through Sanlam’s Short-term partners, Santam and MiWay.
His brother had a policy with Sanlam.
On October 18, 2022, at 8am, a sheriff of the court arrived at a house in Springs to execute an eviction letter on behalf of a Sanlam policy holder, the brother to the broker.
Immediately after the sheriff had spoken to the tenant, the tenant went back into the house and set it alight.
The fire department was called at 8.12am and owner of the house was subsequently informed about the incident, and he arrived at the scene shortly thereafter.
The same day, Arbee contacted Sanlam at 8:50am on behalf of his brother and added the property on the existing policy cover and demanded that the cover take place with immediate effect.
Between 11:00am and 12:00pm, the same day, Arbee visited the scene and made inquiries with the neighbours.
Two days later, his brother registered a claim for damages caused to the house and alleged that the incident occurred at 9:20am on October 18, 2022.
Sanlam launched an investigation and found that Arbee acted dishonestly by misrepresenting the sequence of events.
The investigator also found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the fire occurred before the cover could take effect.
As a result, the Arbee was dismissed in November 2023 and debarred in April 2024.
Aggrieved by the outcome, he approached FST to challenge the decision to debar him.
In his application, he said he was given instructions to include the house in the brother’s policy on October 17, 2022, however, he was unable to add the house on the cover because because his portal was off-line. It was, however, established during the investigation that the broker’s portal was operational at all times.
He further argued that the debarment was flawed as he was not informed of the process, or he was not provided with an opportunity to present his case.
He said this undermined his rights to challenge the debarment.
He added that if he did not on his own, conduct research regarding the debarment reconsideration process, he would not have known of the process to present his case.
However, FST found that Sanlam had adhered to the procedural requirements set out in the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act.
The tribunal also found that he was informed at least on two occasions the intention to debar him. He acknowledged receipt of a notice dated August 1, 2023.
He was first informed that based on the seriousness of the allegations made against him, Sanlam believed he could be found not to be a fit and proper person in terms of the FAIS Act to act as a representative of any financial services provider within the financial service industry.
He was further informed that Sanlam was contemplating placing his name on a register of representatives debarred from giving financial advice. He was then requested to provide Sanlam with further written representations as to why Sanlam should not terminate his contract and debar him.
Having received notice of possible debarment on August 11, 2023, he served his detailed email response dated August 16, 2023.
Therefore, the suggestion that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was taken, was rejected.