Partially upheld: ISA / savings administration complaint against 2 Plan Wealth Management Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained about advice from 2 Plan to transfer her investment and ISA funds to an adviser-led discretionary managed portfolio (OMPS), the failure to explain her funds remained in cash, transfer delays, and lack of advice on ISA allowance. The ombudsman found the recommendation was suitable and Miss H understood it through signed agreements. Although 2 Plan made an error causing transfer delay from April to November 2021, Miss H sustained no loss as the recommended fund underperformed and she benefited from remaining in cash. Once Miss H terminated the advisory relationship on 2 December 2021, responsibility for her funds passed to her. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, awarding £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the transfer delay and customer service shortcomings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Miss H understood and accepted the recommendation to transfer to an adviser-led discretionary managed portfolio, as evidenced by the signed agreements and suitability letter. The recommendation was suitable given her limited investment experience and cautious risk profile. However, 2 Plan made an error in the application process that caused transfer delay from April 2021 to November 2021. Whilst this was a shortcoming, Miss H sustained no financial loss because the OMPS-Cautious fund underperformed by -8.10% during the relevant period, meaning she benefited from remaining in cash. Once Miss H terminated the advisory relationship on 2 December 2021, responsibility for managing her funds and making investment decisions fell to her. The adviser had no obligation to explain the implications of termination or to contact her about ISA allowance after the relationship ended. The ombudsman agreed that 2 Plan fell short in keeping Miss H informed and in making errors in the transfer process, causing inconvenience and distress.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website