Not upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against Redmayne-Bentley LLP

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A invested approximately £34,500 in two companies' shares through a SIPP with stockbroking services provided by Redmayne-Bentley, following advice from an authorised IFA. The investments became worthless, and Mr A complained in October 2023 that Redmayne-Bentley should have conducted due diligence and refused the investments. The ombudsman found the complaint was made in time but not upheld, holding that Redmayne-Bentley's obligations as an execution-only stockbroker providing access to listed securities did not extend to assessing investment suitability or conducting additional due diligence beyond regulatory requirements applicable to that relationship.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the complaint was made in time because, while Mr A likely knew of losses before 2 October 2020, he would not reasonably have known that Redmayne-Bentley specifically (rather than the SIPP operator EPML) was responsible. On the merits, the ombudsman held that Redmayne-Bentley's obligations as an execution-only stockbroker providing access to listed shares did not extend to assessing suitability of the SIPP or investments. The regulatory obligations under FCA Principles and COBS rules, considered in the factual context of a non-advisory relationship involving listed securities, did not require Redmayne-Bentley to conduct additional due diligence or refuse the trading instructions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website