Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against M & G Securities Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that M & G Securities Limited failed to provide information about the original purchase prices of investment units he sold in April 2023 in the specific letter format he requested, similar to what M & G had provided in 2022. Mr A wanted this information for tax purposes and explicitly stated he did not want extensive paperwork. M & G initially provided a full transaction statement and subsequently sent inconsistent letters that did not clearly address what Mr A was seeking, causing him frustration through multiple phone calls and unclear responses. The ombudsman found M & G had no formal regulatory obligation to provide information in the requested format, as it was already available in standard statements, but M & G's communication was deficient and inconsistent. The ombudsman concluded that M & G's apology and £100 compensation already provided were adequate to address the distress caused, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while M & G had no formal regulatory obligation to provide information in the specific format Mr A requested, it had previously done so in 2022. However, the ombudsman concluded M & G was not required to repeat this service simply because it had done so before, as the information was already available in statements and tax vouchers M & G was obligated to provide. The key fault was M & G's inconsistent and unclear communication in response to Mr A's requests and complaint. M & G should have either clearly committed to providing the information in the requested format or explicitly explained why it could not do so. Instead, M & G's letters were confusing and did not properly address what Mr A was seeking, causing him legitimate frustration and inconvenience. However, M & G's apology and £100 compensation were deemed adequate to address the distress caused by this communication failure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website