Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Jarvis Investment Management Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Jarvis unreasonably restricted his trading account and prevented him from accessing his money and shares. Jarvis had restricted the account after receiving returned mail and requested address verification documentation from an accepted list. Mr G, temporarily living in Spain, provided alternative documents (V5 registration, driving licence, DWP letter) which Jarvis rejected as they did not meet its criteria or currency requirements. The ombudsman found Jarvis's actions reasonable given its regulatory obligations under anti-money laundering rules and the need to verify current address information. Although sympathising with Mr G's frustration, the ombudsman noted he had the option to provide a bank statement, which would have resolved the issue. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Jarvis's request for address verification was reasonable and necessary to comply with regulatory obligations and protect Mr G's account security. While sympathising with Mr G's difficult circumstances (temporary relocation to Spain), the ombudsman concluded that Jarvis acted fairly by providing a clear list of acceptable documents and explaining why submitted documents did not meet its requirements. The ombudsman noted that Mr G had the option to provide a bank statement, which would have resolved the issue, and that Jarvis ultimately went beyond its normal processes by accepting screenshots.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website