Upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Redmayne-Bentley LLP
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5468727 of 2025-09-05T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against Redmayne-Bentley LLP. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5468727 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Redmayne-Bentley LLP |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1) Refund undisclosed commission of USD 3,643.16 with 8% simple interest from sale date to settlement; 2) Pay USD 0.10 per share for the price differential Mr O missed (USD 7 actual vs USD 7.10 expected); 3) Pay £500 for distress and inconvenience; 4) Provide tax deduction certificate if income tax deducted from interest portion. |
Summary
Mr O instructed Redmayne-Bentley to sell his shares over two days with a minimum price of USD 7, seeking to maximize returns. Redmayne-Bentley described selling 'in line with the average price of the day' but actually executed a strict limit order, selling all shares within eight minutes at USD 7 per share. The firm also charged an undisclosed commission. Mr O complained that Redmayne-Bentley's misleading description caused him to set a lower limit than he would have otherwise, resulting in a lower sale price (USD 7 vs USD 7.10 available in the market). The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Redmayne-Bentley failed to communicate fairly about order execution mechanics and charged undisclosed fees, ordering compensation for the price differential, commission refund with interest, and distress damages.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Redmayne-Bentley's description of how it would 'work the order in line with kind of the average sort of price of the day' gave Mr O the impression his shares would be sold in tranches over time to achieve an average price above USD 7, not as a strict limit order at USD 7. When Redmayne-Bentley required a firm limit without clearly explaining this meant immediate execution at that price, it failed to communicate fairly. Mr O's closing statement ('let's see where we can go with anything above seven dollars') indicated he did not intend a straightforward limit order. Redmayne-Bentley's post-sale description of selling 'throughout the day' further evidences it knew Mr O's expectations differed. Had Redmayne-Bentley properly explained the mechanics, Mr O would have set a higher limit (USD 7.10) or split his order into tranches, likely achieving USD 7.10 per share given market conditions.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Redmayne-Bentley LLP, all decisions | 29 | 22% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,163 | 37% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,180 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website