Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that he received less from selling his Jupiter unit trust investments than the prices quoted on Jupiter's website. Jupiter explained it displayed I-class unit prices as the default because most customers now hold investments via platforms in this class, which offers lower charges than retail class units. The ombudsman upheld Jupiter's position, finding that the pricing display was fair, reasonable and industry-standard. As an execution-only client with no advisory service, Mr D bore responsibility for understanding the pricing process and seeking clarification if unclear. The ombudsman found no evidence that Jupiter paid Mr D an incorrect price and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator that Jupiter's explanation was reasonable. As an execution-only client, Mr D bore responsibility for understanding the pricing process and checking the terms. Jupiter's display of I-class prices as default was fair, reasonable and industry-standard, particularly as most customers now hold investments via platforms in I-class units. The differential pricing between retail and I-class is justified by the lower charges associated with I-class, which results in higher fund values over time. No evidence indicated Jupiter paid Mr D the wrong price.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website