Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against FIL Investments International

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N, a 78-year-old retired investor with 30 years of investment experience, invested approximately £355,000 into Fidelity's Discretionary Portfolio Management service in January 2022 following adviser recommendation. He subsequently complained that the advice was unsuitable, the portfolio was being churned, and he experienced poor service including adviser changes and lack of clarity. The ombudsman found the advice was suitable given Mr N's circumstances and objectives, portfolio rebalancing was legitimate management, and no undue pressure was applied. However, the ombudsman agreed that Fidelity failed to adequately explain how the DPM and wealth management services operated, causing confusion and inconvenience, and awarded £250 compensation for these communication failures.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the DPM investment recommendation suitable because it matched Mr N's recorded needs for longer-term growth, his circumstances as a retired 78-year-old with adequate reserves, and his attitude to risk. While Mr N's risk questionnaire indicated level four risk tolerance, Fidelity's recommendation of the lower-risk Portfolio 3 was more appropriate given his age and circumstances. The portfolio rebalancing was not churning but legitimate portfolio management within the discretionary service parameters clearly disclosed in the documentation. However, the ombudsman agreed that Fidelity failed to adequately clarify how the DPM service and wealth management service operated, causing confusion and inconvenience to Mr N, warranting compensation for this service failure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website