Partially upheld: General financial advice complaint against Progeny Wealth Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5525055 of 2025-07-04T00:00:00+00:00. General financial advice complaint against Progeny Wealth Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5525055 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-07-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Progeny Wealth Limited |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | General financial advice |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | PWL must refund the 2021 annual review fees with growth adjustment (calculated as if fees had remained invested in the existing funds from deduction date to final decision date). Compensation should be paid into Mrs B's pension plan if possible, adjusted for charges and tax relief. If pension payment is not possible, payment should be made as a lump sum with notional tax reduction of 15% (assuming 25% tax-free cash remaining and 20% income tax rate on 75% of loss) or 20% if tax-free cash fully utilised. PWL must provide clear calculation details to Mrs B. |
Summary
Mrs B complained that Progeny Wealth Limited provided unsuitable ongoing pension advice from 2019 to 2023, including a recommendation to transfer to a new provider (Q) and changes to investment portfolios, and that she was not adequately informed about charges. The ombudsman found that PWL's investment recommendations (AP50 and later Tempo 60) were suitable for Mrs B's medium attitude to risk and that the 2019 provider transfer was appropriate, though PWL could have better explained the rationale. However, PWL breached its service agreement by failing to complete the 2021 annual review and issue a written report as required. The ombudsman rejected Mrs B's complaints about bond performance, noting this was outside PWL's control and the portfolio remained aligned with her risk profile. The complaint was upheld in part, with PWL ordered to refund the 2021 annual review fees with growth adjustment and provide appropriate compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that PWL's recommendations on investment mix (AP50 and later Tempo 60) were suitable for Mrs B's medium attitude to risk and that the 2019 transfer to provider Q was appropriate given Mrs B's history of active engagement with ongoing advice and the loss of governance that would have resulted from remaining with provider E. However, PWL failed to fully explain the rationale for the transfer (discretionary mandate benefits and platform provider support) which would have been relevant to Mrs B's decision. The ombudsman was satisfied that PWL provided clear information about costs and that the ongoing advice service was optional. However, PWL breached its service agreement in 2021 by failing to complete the annual review and issue a written report, despite conducting a meeting and attitude to risk assessment. The ombudsman rejected Mrs B's complaint about bond performance, noting this was outside PWL's control and the portfolio remained aligned with her attitude to risk. The ombudsman also rejected the claim that PWL should have refunded fees from the point concerns were raised in 2021, as the portfolios remained suitable.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Progeny Wealth Limited, all decisions | 6 | 42% |
| General financial advice, all decisions | 4,578 | 36% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,579 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website