Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against 2 Plan Wealth Management Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K and Mrs K complained to 2Plan Wealth Management about investment advice to place £500,000 (later £100,000 more) into an offshore investment bond on behalf of their company. The suitability reports stated their objectives as 'Growth no withdrawals' for 10 years, but also included template paragraphs describing a 5% annual tax-deferred withdrawal facility. When Mr K attempted to make withdrawals in 2023, he discovered this facility was not available for company-held investments. Mr K claimed the withdrawal facility was a major factor in his decision to invest and sought repayment of adviser and product fees. The ombudsman found the advice was suitable given the clearly documented objectives of capital growth without withdrawals, determined the withdrawal information was erroneous template text, and concluded the primary investment motivation was tax planning advice from their accountant, not withdrawal access. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that despite the inclusion of erroneous template paragraphs about withdrawal facilities, the overall advice was suitable because Mr and Mrs K's clearly documented objectives were capital growth with no withdrawals over 10 years. The ombudsman found that the 5% withdrawal information was included in error as a template paragraph and was contradicted by the personalised 'Growth no withdrawals' objectives section. The ombudsman determined that the tax planning exercise, not the withdrawal facility, was the primary driver of the investment decision, supported by the accountant's involvement and the fact that alternative onshore investments were discounted for tax reasons. The ombudsman noted that Mr and Mrs K had substantial other assets and emergency funds, and only sought withdrawals in 2023, years after the advice was given, suggesting this was not a consideration at the time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website