Veste

Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-3694934 of 2023-01-25T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-3694934
Decision date2023-01-25T00:00:00+00:00
FirmJupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited
ProductInvestment
Claim typeService failures generally
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo further remedy ordered. Jupiter's existing offer of £100 compensation was deemed sufficient.

Summary

Mr C invested in a Jupiter unit trust fund and requested encashment on 6 October 2021. The proceeds were delayed from the expected 11 October release date until 29 October 2021 due to an internal error at Jupiter, where staff mistakenly believed they were waiting for further documentation from Mr C. The delay caused Mr C concern that his money might not be safe, and he was unhappy with Jupiter's communication. Jupiter acknowledged the error and offered £100 compensation. The ombudsman found this compensation fair and reasonable, not upholding the complaint, as Jupiter's security checks were appropriate and the compensation adequately reflected the distress caused by the delay.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Jupiter's systems for checking fund releases are appropriate and necessary for consumer protection. However, Jupiter made an internal error that caused an additional 10-day delay beyond its normal 4-day process. While the ombudsman understood Mr C's frustration about lack of communication during the delay, she considered Jupiter was limited in what it could disclose whilst conducting checks. The ombudsman found Jupiter's £100 compensation offer to be fair and reasonable given the circumstances and the distress caused.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited, all decisions1315%
Service failures generally, all decisions32,76733%
Investment, all decisions14,11434%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website