Upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Assetz SME Capital Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5667524 of 2025-11-14T00:00:00+00:00. Account administration errors complaint against Assetz SME Capital Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5667524 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-11-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Assetz SME Capital Limited |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Account administration errors |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Assetz SME Capital Limited must pay: (1) £1,742.45 refund for LLS fees that reduced interest on the Manual Lending Account, plus simple interest at 8% from the date of each deduction to the date of settlement; (2) £1,030.52 refund for LLS fees that reduced interest on the Access Accounts, plus simple interest at 8% from the date of each deduction to the date of settlement. |
Summary
Mr M complained about a Lender Loan Servicing Fee (0.9% per annum) that Assetz introduced on his peer-to-peer lending accounts from May 2020. Assetz relied on variation clauses in the contract to justify the fee, claiming it was permitted under the terms and conditions. The ombudsman found that while the contract contained broad variation rights, these clauses caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to Mr M's detriment under UTCCR 1999. Critically, Mr M was not informed when the contract was formed about potential future fees or how they would be calculated, and his ability to terminate the contract was severely impaired by abnormal market conditions in March 2020 when the fee was introduced. Although Assetz provided justification based on pandemic-related costs and gave one month's notice, the ombudsman concluded it was unfair to introduce a new charge that changed the contract price without giving Mr M a genuine opportunity to reject it. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Assetz to refund the reduction in interest Mr M received on both his Manual Lending Account and Access Accounts, plus 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Assetz's contract terms appeared to reserve the right to introduce fees, the variation clauses (C2 and C20) caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to Mr M's detriment, contrary to UTCCR 1999. The ombudsman applied the Aziz test, considering what position Mr M would have been in under national law without the contract, and whether a reasonable consumer would have agreed to such terms if individually negotiated. The ombudsman concluded that Mr M was not aware when or how much any future fee would be charged, making it unlikely he would have agreed to such terms. Critically, Mr M's practical ability to exercise his right to terminate was significantly impaired at the time the fee was introduced due to abnormal market conditions affecting the secondary market. Although Assetz provided justification based on pandemic-related market conditions and gave one month's notice, the ombudsman found it was not fair or reasonable to introduce a new fee that changed the price of the contract without giving Mr M a genuine opportunity to reject it. The remedy focuses on refunding the reduction in interest received rather than the fee itself, as Mr M held multiple accounts with varying interest rates.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Assetz SME Capital Limited, all decisions | 54 | 10% |
| Account administration errors, all decisions | 25,844 | 25% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,114 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website