View more on these topics

FOS upholds two Keydata complaints against IFAs

The Financial Ombudsman Service has provisionally upheld two complaints against IFAs who recommended clients invest in Keydata products, but has only awarded compensation in one case.

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme had previously rejected claims in both cases as it said the losses were caused by the misappropriation of SLS assets, which issued the bonds that backed Keydata products.

Compensation has been paid to investors by the scheme in cases where they relied on misleading statements in Keydata’s brochure that the bond could be placed in an investment Isa.

Both FOS cases relate to recommendations to invest in Keydata in 2005.

In the first case, an unnamed adviser recommended clients invest £60,000 in the Keydata secure income bond issue two.

The clients, identified only as Mr and Mrs K in the provisional decision, referred the case to the FOS on the basis they had understood the bond was guaranteed by HSBC.

The IFA noted Mr and Mrs K wanted an investment term of up to five years, and that based on their descriptions of attitudes to risk, they were cautious investors.

In the provisional decision FOS principal ombudsman Tony Boorman (pictured) says he doubts whether such a fund would have been suitable for anyone other than experienced retail investors, and certainly not for Mr and Mrs K.

He says: “Indeed, in my view the advice the IFA gave to Mr and Mrs K to invest in the Keydata bond demonstrated a complete disregard for their interests.”

Boorman says while Mr and Mrs K are “innocent  victims” that have “suffered very significant losses”, the IFA should be held to account for the poor advice and not for the misappropriation of SLS funds.

His provisional decision is for the IFA to pay Mr and Mrs K the capital invested less any withdrawals, distributions of capital or pre-tax income.

The IFA also has to pay a return of 4 per cent from the time of the investment until November 4, 2008,  and a return of of 2.5 per year after that date compounded annually from the date of investment until November 13, 2009 when Keydata defaulted.

The IFA will be required to pay this amount up to a maximum of £100,000. Interest of 2.5 per cent a year will also be added from November 2009 until the award is paid.

In the second case, the client, identified as Mr W in the provisional decision, invested £15,000 into the Keydata secure income bond issue three, again issued by SLS.

Mr W inherited £100,000 from his late mother’s estate, and the £15,000 Keydata investment was recommended as part of a wider portfolio.

Mr W referred the case to the FOS as he had understood the investment was guaranteed.

Boorman says in his decision that he is not convinced the Keydata recommendation was suitable, even as part of a wider and cautious portfolio.

However he says overall the IFA gave thoughtful and considered advice, which shows “this is not a case where the adviser had little or no regard for the interests of his client”.

Boorman therefore upheld the complaint, but did not make any award against the adviser.



Towry set to close Norwich office

Towry is consulting on closing down its Norwich office and moving all its East Anglia operations to its Cambridge branch. The firm informed employees yesterday that it is looking to merge the offices with a final decisison to be made next month. There are 12 staff at the office with four advisers and eight non-advisory […]

Insurers criticised over investment governance

Insurers unwillingness to regularly monitor the funds they invest in leaves savers in contract-based pensions “ill-served and poorly protected”, a report claims. A report by responsible investment charity FairPensions, which is based on a survey of the UK’s 10 largest contract-based pension providers, says only one, Aviva, has signed the UK Stewardship Code. Legal & […]

Defining factors

With the mortgage market review consultation period now over, the horse-trading between the intermediary representatives and the lending community now begins in earnest. The heart of the discussion will clearly be over advised sales and what can be interpreted as execution-only, especially in the call-centres and non-client-facing operations of the mortgage lenders. I recently read […]

India correction: a terrific entry point?

By Kunal Desai, head of Indian Equities, Neptune A key concern for investors who were looking at India afresh has been the rich valuations and strong prior performance. We view the correction in the market through short-term growth concerns from demonetisation as a terrific entry point for the long-term investor. Investors should not be overly concerned […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Since when has what the courts would do been part of the FOS unfathomable compensation machine’s workings?

  2. Doesn't make sense 16th April 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Overall the IFA gave thoughtful and considered advice, which shows “this is not a case where the adviser had little or no regard for the interests of his client”…….But the complaint was upheld?????? Why was that then, tell us the real story please….Was it a lack of caveats in the suitability letter or what?

  3. The problem I have with this is that the loss is attributable to the misappropriation of funds, NOT the poor advice,

    Thus, if FOS complies with the ruling in Needler that windfalls resulting from poor advice should not be considered then it also follows that it a misappropriation of funds resulting from poor advice should not be considered.

  4. So these are SLS Keydata cases. What happens then when we get to the stage where it is a Lifemark case and it is agreed the IFA gave thoughtful and considered advice, which shows “this is not a case where the adviser had little or no regard for the interests of his client”…….
    Will the FOS then find in against the IFA and force them to pay, despite the fact the loss was as a result of the collapse of Keydata AFTER the HMRC issue resulted in the identification of the theft at SLS?
    The only people who had a chance to spot the theft were NOT IFAs, but the FSA, Luxembourg regulator and PWC Luxembourg who were the auditors for Lifemark and probably for SLS too.
    These cases should NOT be decided by the FOS, the reason for the loss should be identified by a Test case in a COURT of LAW.
    Even the same adjudicator at the FOS appears unable to give consitent decisions and follow the precedents he’s setting himself!

  5. This has become a sort of pass the parcel farce. Blame appears to be heaved onto anyone who is in no position to fight back. Those firms who flogged Keydata bonds to everyone ought to be the target and not someone who did all that they could to satisfy themselves that the product was sound.

Leave a comment


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