Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Assetz SME Capital Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Assetz unfairly introduced a £1 Withdrawal Fee (with one free withdrawal every 90 days) and a £35 ISA Transfer Fee on his P2P lending and ISA accounts during the platform's solvent wind-down. Mr G argued the fees were excessive and that Assetz should allow one free withdrawal per month and one free transfer per year. Assetz defended the fees as necessary to cover direct costs of processing withdrawals and transfers, which had exceeded forecasts, and argued that charging per-transaction was fairer than increasing the Lender Fee for all investors. The ombudsman found the fees were justified by genuine cost increases, accurately reflected the costs of providing these services, and that investors had options to mitigate their impact, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Assetz's terms and conditions lacked specificity about when fees would be introduced, they were sufficiently clear that charges would cover direct costs. The ombudsman was satisfied that Assetz gave due and careful consideration to lenders' interests when deciding to wind down the platform and that the fees were justified by genuine cost increases and higher-than-anticipated transaction volumes. The ombudsman accepted that charging those who use services most (per-transaction charging) is fair, and that the fee amounts reflected actual costs incurred. The ombudsman acknowledged concerns about the fairness of the terms and the impact of limiting free withdrawals to every 90 days, but concluded these did not constitute unfair treatment given the circumstances. The ombudsman found that investors had mitigation options available, including the ability to make one free withdrawal every 90 days, to wait for full loan repayment before transferring, to make multiple smaller transfers, or to use ISA flexibility to temporarily move funds elsewhere.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website