View more on these topics

Network to compensate after Ucis advice

British Pounds in a Mouse TrapAdviser network Online Partnership Limited has been ordered to compensate a former client who was advised to invest a large portion of his self-invested personal pension into two unregulated collective investments.

The Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld a complaint from Mr D that was made in response to unsuitable investment advice that he felt did not reflect his objectives and risk attitude.

In 2010, Mr D held pension plans worth more than £186,000 and he was advised by Online to transfer these into a Sipp.

A few months later, £80,000 was invested into two UCIS, and three months after that the same level of investment was made into the same two funds.

Mr D complained in 2016 that the investments hadn’t been made in line with his attitude to risk. Online agreed that investing in the UCIS was not suitable and calculated redress.

However, an adjudicator had decided that the redress offered was not adequate, and that the whole of the portfolio should be considered, with the 20 per cent invested in managed funds not offsetting the 80 per cent that was invested in UCIS.

The adjudicator also said Mr D should be compensated for five years’ Sipp fees, although Online subsequently said it was only prepared to pay three.

Online believes that both of the funds would be liquidated within three years and therefore was not prepared to pay for five years worth of fees.

Upon reviewing all the evidence, Ombudsman Doug Mansell came to the same conclusion as the adjudicator and upheld the complaint.

With an attitude to risk being recorded as three out of 10, Mansell says that “this indicates he was a cautious investor”, and the 80 per cent of his Sipp that was invested into “high-risk funds” did not fit his investment profile.

Mansell adds that the other 20 per cent of his Sipp, which was put into a managed fund, “didn’t play a sufficient part to significantly mitigate the risk to Mr D’s pension posed by the UCIS investments”.

Regarding compensation, the FOS aims to put Mr D in as close a position as possible to where he would be without the unsuitable advice.

In order to do this, Online must work out what the investment would have been worth at the date of the FOS decision. Mansell describes this as the fair value.

The FOS requires Online to compare the performance of the investment with a benchmark which, for half of the investment, uses the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return index, and for the other half, the average rate from fixed rate bonds.

Mansell says: “[The index] would be a fair measure for someone who was prepared to take some risk to get a higher return.”

He adds: “The average rate for the fixed rate bonds would be a fair measure for someone who wanted to achieve a reasonable return without risk to his capital.”

Mansell views this benchmark as a “reasonable compromise” that “broadly reflects the sort of return Mr D could have obtained from investments suited to his objective and risk attitude”.

Online is also required to pay 8 per cent additional interest per year from the date of the decision to the date of settlement.

The FOS has instructed Online to pay Mr D the difference between the fair value and the actual value of his investment, up to a maximum of £150,000 plus interest.

Recommended

1

FOS review mulls new funding model

An independent review into the Financial Ombudsman Service has mooted the idea of linking funding contributions to the risk of complaints firms pose. The review was carried out by Money and Mental Health Policy Institute vice chair Richard Lloyd after a Channel 4 documentary earlier this year criticised the complaints adjudicator for providing a lack […]

7

FOS dispels ‘myths’ about bias against advisers

The Financial Ombudsman Service has challenged the view it is biased against advisers and takes an inconsistent approach to the profession in rulings. Lead ombudsman Caroline Mitchell criticised several “myths” advisers have about the body at Money Marketing’s Retirement Summit yesterday. She says it is not true FOS will rule against an adviser if they […]

The FCA’s five fixes for retirement information

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has started to change the way that people will be told about their pension options. In a recent market study paper, they lay out their final proposals on the information that should be delivered to people approaching retirement and how it should look and feel. During 2015, there will be […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Julian Stevens 27th July 2018 at 3:32 pm

    But did the complainant actually lose any money?

    • He invested in two dodgy high risk UCIS funds on the advice of a dodgy firm. They are unnamed but described as “illiquid”. What do you think, Julian?

      • To add to that, the FOS has covered the possibility that he hasn’t actually lost anything. If On-Line compensates him on the assumption that the unregulated toxic junk he holds is worthless, but it later turns out that the unregulated toxic junk is worth something, On-Line can require an undertaking from Mr D to repay the value realised from the unregulated toxic junk to On-Line. So if he hasn’t lost any money, he won’t have his cake and eat it.

        Standard FOS practice in cases like these.

      • Julian Stevens 27th July 2018 at 4:53 pm

        Yeah, okay. Surprising that a network allowed such investments to be made, even as long ago as 2010.

  2. Julian – see DRN5004232 (http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=184108).

    Appears that the 2x UCIS became ‘illiquid’ (nil NAV), so presumably this is being considered as a ‘full loss’ position. [‘Possibly’ related to Connaught investment/s …??]

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