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

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

Written by:
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.

Your right to a refund if travel is affected by train strikes

There have been a wave of train strikes in the past six months, and for anyone travelling today Friday 3 Febru...

Could you save money with a social broadband tariff?

Two-thirds of low-income households are unaware they could be saving on broadband, according to Uswitch.

How to help others and donate to food banks this winter

This winter is expected to be the most challenging yet for the food bank network as soaring costs push more pe...

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