You are here: Home - Investing - Experienced Investor - News -

Advice firm ordered to repay £7k fee to unhappy client

0
Written by:
27/11/2014
An IFA has been ordered to repay a £7,400 upfront fee it received from a client who subsequently felt its recommendations were inappropriate, following a final decision from the ombudsman.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) ruled Chiltern Consultancy should reimburse the £7,392 fee plus interest to the unnamed client, as well as a total of £250 for inconvenience and distress caused, including by failing to provide promised advice on inheritance tax (IHT).

The FOS ruling related to advice given to the client, a ‘Mrs A’, by Chiltern in 2012.

It charged 2 per cent of her existing holdings, plus an annual charge, for recommending the transfer of her investments from her discretionary manager (DFM) to a platform to help meet her strong preference for ethical solutions.

But after complaining about the involvement of a third party introducer in the transfer and the quality of the advice given, Mrs A said she did not want to proceed.

Chiltern rejected her complaint and offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill, before later offering to refund part of the upfront fee.

After reviewing the case, the FOS declared it was not satisfied Chiltern conducted the proper research and due diligence to justify switching management of Mrs A’s funds.

It added it could find no sound reason for the switch to meet the client’s ethical preferences; her original DFM specialised in ethical investments but Chiltern appeared to decide the presence of particular stocks in Mrs A’s portfolio rendered it inappropriate.

The FOS noted Chiltern did not ask the DFM to explain the presence of the stocks, adding it would have been “surprised” if it couldn’t justify the picks given its ethical model.

To compound matters, the alternative funds selected – two ethical funds and two managed funds – also contained similar ‘unsuitable’ stocks, such as pharameutical, oil or gas company shares, as those in her original portfolio.

Though the FOS noted it was satisfied with the advice Chiltern gave to Mrs A in respect of her investment bonds, it concluded: “Mrs A was clearly dissatisfied with the [other] advice she received from Chiltern and decided not to act on it. In light of the quality of the advice she received in respect of her portfolio, I am satisfied her conclusion that all of the advice she had received was sub-standard advice was, in the circumstances, reasonable.”

Related Posts

Tag Box

There are 0 Comment(s)

If you wish to comment without signing in, click your cursor in the top box and tick the 'Sign in as a guest' box at the bottom.

Flight cancelled or delayed? Your rights explained

With no sign of the problems in UK aviation easing over the peak summer period, many will worry whether holida...

Rail strikes: Your travel and refund rights

Thousands of railway workers will strike across three days this week, grinding much of the transport system to...

How your monthly bills could rise as the base rate reaches 1.25%

The Bank of England has raised the base rate to 1.25% as predicted – the fifth consecutive rise in just six ...

What will happen if rates change

How your finances will be impacted by a rise in interest rates.

Regular Savings Calculator

Small regular contributions can build up nicely over time.

Online Savings Calculator

Work out how your online savings can build over time.

DIY investors: 10 common mistakes to avoid

For those without the help and experience of an adviser, here are 10 common DIY investor mistakes to avoid.

Mortgage down-valuations: Tips to avoid pulling out of a house sale

Down-valuations are on the rise. So, what does it mean for home buyers, and what can you do?

Five tips for surviving a bear market mauling

The S&P 500 has slipped into bear market territory and for UK investors, the FTSE 250 is also on the edge. Her...

Money Tips of the Week