Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Wealthify Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms R complained that Wealthify Limited failed to provide adequate investment management services during a market downturn, claiming the firm should have taken action to minimize her losses and contacted her about encashing her investments. She also raised concerns about the firm's marketing practices during the downturn and a missing £200 transfer reward. The ombudsman found that Wealthify's discretionary management agreement aligned with Ms R's attitude to risk and was designed for medium to longer-term investment with inherent loss potential clearly disclosed. The firm was not obligated to suggest encashing investments or provide general investment advice beyond managing the portfolio according to the agreed Tentative Plan. The £200 reward was confirmed as paid. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Ms R's investment was appropriately invested in line with her agreed Tentative Plan, which was designed for medium to longer-term investment with the aim of limiting losses over high returns. The plan's key facts clearly stated that losses could be incurred in line with market conditions and that investing for less than 5 years was unlikely to be appropriate. While Ms R was free to encash her investment at any time, this was her decision to make, not Wealthify's obligation to suggest. The firm's discretionary management agreement did not extend to providing general investment advice such as suggesting she 'park cash' until market conditions improved. Wealthify's changes to the plan were part of its ongoing service obligations rather than a response to Ms R's complaint, and the firm managed the portfolio in accordance with the agreed terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website