Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Westminster Wealth Management LLP
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-2028795 of 2016-02-25T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Westminster Wealth Management LLP. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-2028795 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2016-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Westminster Wealth Management LLP |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Pay Mr D £4,500 representing lost tax relief, plus interest at 8% per annum simple interest from the date Mr D paid the tax to the date of settlement. If tax is deducted from the interest, the business must supply Mr D with a tax certificate. |
Summary
Mr D applied to join the Select TV EIS in the 2013/14 tax year through Westminster Wealth Management LLP. Although he missed the business's 28 March deadline, his hard copy application was received on 31 March and sent to the EIS provider the same day. When Mr D emailed on 1 April asking if his application was being processed, the business did not reply. Mr D's application was not processed in time to obtain tax relief. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the business failed in its duty of care by not responding to Mr D's inquiry and lacking adequate procedures to track applications. The business was ordered to pay £4,500 in lost tax relief plus 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Mr D missed the business's original 28 March deadline, this had little material impact as his application was at the same stage as those submitted by the deadline when received on 31 March. The critical failure was the business's lack of adequate procedures to track applications and respond to customer inquiries. When Mr D asked on 1 April if his application was being processed, the business owed him a duty to answer promptly and accurately. Had the business done so and confirmed the application was missing, both parties would have taken immediate action to resubmit before the tax year deadline. The business's inability to track applications sent to the EIS provider was unsatisfactory given the time-critical nature and serious detriment to consumers. Therefore, the business was responsible for Mr D not receiving the tax relief.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Westminster Wealth Management LLP, all decisions | 9 | 22% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 32,767 | 33% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,114 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website