Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Assetz SME Capital Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained about Assetz's introduction of a £35 ISA Transfer Fee on his IFISA account, arguing it was an unfair variation of contract terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contradicted fair treatment obligations. Assetz had announced the fee in January 2024 (implemented August 2025) to cover increased costs from a surge in transfer requests following its announcement of platform closure and secondary market closure. The ombudsman found that Term 7.3 of the ISA terms permitted the fee if based on service costs, that Assetz fairly chose to charge IFISA investors specifically rather than increase the Lender Fee for all investors, that the £35 amount reflected actual costs and was competitive with industry practice, and that investors had options to mitigate the impact. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Term 7.3 had some fairness concerns (lack of specificity on timing, frequency, and amount), it was limited by the requirement that fees be 'based on the costs related to providing the service'. The ombudsman considered this a legitimate business decision to facilitate the solvent wind-down and determined that charging IFISA investors specifically (rather than increasing the Lender Fee for all investors) was fair as it ensured only those creating the cost bore it. The £35 fee was found to reflect actual costs based on Assetz's detailed calculations, was broadly in line with industry practice, and investors had mitigation options (waiting for full repayment, making multiple transfers, or using the flexible IFISA feature). The ombudsman acknowledged concerns about cost apportionment on a per-transaction basis when costs are fixed, but found Mr M was not financially disadvantaged given actual transaction volumes were lower than anticipated.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website