Not upheld: General financial advice complaint against Charterhouse Claims Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M engaged Charterhouse Claims Limited to pursue a mis-selling claim against a payday lender for 56 loans taken over four years, agreeing to pay 35% of any compensation plus VAT. The Financial Ombudsman Service initially assessed only the first five loans, resulting in a £1,321.21 offer, but Mr M noticed the error and Charterhouse failed to catch it. After Mr M raised the issue, the FOS increased the offer to £12,031.16. Mr M complained that Charterhouse's fee was disproportionate and should be reduced further, but Charterhouse had already reduced it by £100. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that Charterhouse had fulfilled their contractual obligations, the fee was agreed upfront, and Mr M suffered no financial loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Charterhouse had fulfilled all the services outlined in their terms and conditions, and therefore were entitled to the agreed 35% fee. While Charterhouse made a mistake in not noticing the FOS error, the ombudsman considered the £100 reduction proportionate because: (1) Mr M did not need advice about the offer as he immediately identified the error himself; (2) the delay in resolving the issue was due to FOS and the lender's processes, not Charterhouse's fault; and (3) Mr M ultimately received the correct compensation and did not lose out financially.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website