Partially upheld: General financial advice complaint against Progeny Wealth Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5525100 of 2025-07-04T00:00:00+00:00. General financial advice complaint against Progeny Wealth Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5525100 |
|---|---|
| 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 ongoing advice fees with growth adjustment (calculated as if the fees had remained invested in the existing investment funds from the date of deduction to the date of final decision). Compensation should be paid into Mr B's pension plan if possible, allowing for the effect of charges and available tax relief. If pension payment is not possible or creates protection/allowance issues, payment should be made as a lump sum with a notional tax reduction of 15% (or 20% if tax-free cash entitlement fully utilised). PWL must provide clear calculation details to Mr B. |
Summary
Mr B complained to the FOS about advice provided by Progeny Wealth Limited (PWL) regarding his pension from 2019 to 2023. His main concerns were that he received insufficient information about charges and suitability, that PWL failed to act on his concerns about poor bond performance raised in 2021, and that he was not adequately informed the ongoing advice service was optional. The ombudsman found that while PWL's investment recommendations were suitable for Mr B's medium attitude to risk and the ongoing advice service was clearly disclosed as optional in the client agreements, PWL failed to provide the full service in 2021 by not issuing a written report following the annual review meeting. The complaint was upheld in part, requiring PWL to refund the 2021 ongoing advice fees with growth adjustment, but the suitability of the investment recommendations and the 2019 provider transfer were upheld as appropriate for Mr B's circumstances.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that PWL failed to provide the full ongoing advice service in 2021, as no written report or recommendation was issued following the annual review meeting, despite the client service agreement requiring this. However, the 2019 recommendation to transfer to provider Q and invest in AP50 was suitable for Mr B given his medium attitude to risk, his history of engaging with pension management, and the benefits of maintaining ongoing oversight and rebalancing. While PWL could have better explained the reasons for the transfer (discretionary mandate benefits and lack of ongoing governance with the existing provider), this would not have changed Mr B's decision. The investment recommendations throughout 2019-2022 were appropriate to Mr B's attitude to risk, and PWL was not obligated to change investment strategies based on short-term market performance of defensive assets. The performance of short-dated bonds was outside PWL's control, and holding bonds as part of a balanced portfolio aligned with a medium risk profile was reasonable. Mr B's preferred alternative (removing bonds entirely) would have made the portfolio unsuitable for his attitude to risk.
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