Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Cater Allen Limited

Decision detail

Summary

A complained that Cater Allen refused to refund payments made to what A believed were legitimate investments from July 2018, claiming it was a scam. Cater Allen treated the matter as a civil dispute rather than a scam. The ombudsman found that the investment firm appeared legitimate with professional documentation, Companies House registration since 2011, and completed building projects, indicating a failed investment rather than fraud. The ombudsman concluded the payments did not meet the definition of an APP scam under the CRM Code and that Cater Allen acted reasonably in its assessment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) Code definition of an APP scam and determined that the payments did not meet this definition. The investment firm's intended purpose aligned with A's stated intention, the firm appeared legitimate with professional documentation and Companies House registration, and the firm had completed multiple building projects. This indicated a failed investment rather than a fraudulent scheme. Even if Cater Allen had intervened, the ombudsman found no information would have been available that would have caused A to doubt the legitimacy of the investment or led to prevention of the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website