Not upheld: General financial advice complaint against 2 Plan Wealth Management Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S engaged 2 Plan Wealth Management on 12 September 2023 for investment advice on her ISA, GIA and pension, while simultaneously engaging an existing adviser to compare recommendations. 2 Plan's advice was delayed until March 2024 due to information provision problems from Novia, while Mrs S's existing adviser issued recommendations in October 2023. Mrs S reviewed her adviser's recommendation in December 2023 but chose to wait for 2 Plan's advice, then implemented her adviser's recommendation on 13 March 2024 without informing 2 Plan. Mrs S complained that 2 Plan's delay caused her loss of investment opportunity and that the £6,000 fixed fee was unfair and should be waived, arguing the terms were unclear and the advice would have been unsuitable. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, determining that Mrs S retained full control of her decisions, the delay was not binding on her investment plans, she had opportunities to mitigate her fee obligation but chose not to, and the fee was clearly agreed and proportionate to the substantial work performed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs S retained full control of her investment decisions and deliberately chose to wait for 2 Plan's advice despite receiving her adviser's recommendation in October 2023 and reviewing it in December 2023. The delay in 2 Plan's advice stemmed primarily from Novia's information provision problems, not 2 Plan's fault. Mrs S had multiple opportunities to mitigate her fee obligation by informing 2 Plan of her alternative adviser's recommendation (between October and February), but chose not to do so. The £6,000 fixed fee was clearly stated in the signed terms of business and was proportionate to the substantive work performed (approximately 1.5% of total portfolio value, at the lower end of market rates). 2 Plan performed substantial advisory work including detailed reports and fact-finding, and the fee represented a significant discount from what would have been charged on a tiered percentage basis (£10,680). No advice was ultimately issued to Mrs S, but this was her choice, not a failure by 2 Plan, and the fee relates to work performed, not advice accepted.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website