FOS upholds complaint against adviser over £50k ARM bond

The Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld a complaint about advice to invest in ARM Asset Backed Securities despite the FCA ruling promotional material was misleading.

Luxembourg-based life settlement vehicle ARM sold bonds backed by life settlement policies to investors in the UK and Europe without the appropriate permissions.

In October the FCA censured Catalyst Investment Group, the marketing and distribution agent for ARM, for misleading investors when promoting the bonds.

A former client of PQR Financial Planning complained to the FOS after investing £50,000 in an ARM bond in 2006 sold to him as ‘low risk’.

PQR cited the FCA censure against Catalyst and argued the investment represented less than 10 per cent of the client’s Sipp.

But ombudsman Adrian Hudson said: “Given only what was known (or should have been known) to PQR at the time, I do not consider these to have been appropriate holdings for ‘low risk’ investors. The fund was based offshore and the actuarial model used was opaque.”

PQR must pay the difference between the bond’s value and the value it would have held had it been invested in fixed rate bonds.

In the last year, the FOS has also rejected several complaints against Standard Life from investors who claimed the firm should not have allowed their Sipp to invest in ARM bonds.

Following the default of Catalyst, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme said it will consider ARM claims against Catalyst in the first instance, before reviewing claims against advisers. Last week the FSCS said the processing of Catalyst claims had been delayed. 

Jacksons Wealth Management managing director Pete Matthew says: “Advisers should not take all the blame, but they cannot rely on providers’ materials without question.”

PQR declined to comment.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It won’t be calculated as if it was in fixed rate bonds because fixed rate bonds only have net capital added to them whereas FOS will insist that it is paid gross.

    So the complainant will enjoy betterment equal to the tax avoided at the expense of the firm (or PI insurer).

  2. There continues to be a mismatch between the reasonable expectations of advisers who follow regulatory guidance and the antics of the FOS which continues to ignore the precepts of UK law and find its own ‘truth’.

    Many posters consider the MAS to not be fit for purpose. The same descriptive can be applied to the FOS.

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com