Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Ltd continued to charge Annual Management Charges (AMC) after he removed its discretionary management permissions in April 2024, arguing no service was being provided and therefore no fees were due. Charteris maintained it continued to provide administration and monitoring services and was contractually entitled to charge fees. The Ombudsman found that Charteris reasonably continued charging fees because it provided ongoing administration and monitoring services while Mr W's investments remained on its system for several months before he moved them elsewhere. However, the Ombudsman awarded £100 compensation for Charteris' failure to provide clear information about the service nature following removal of discretionary permissions and its failure to clarify whether it could sell assets to cover fees, which caused Mr W confusion and frustration.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that although Mr W removed Charteris' discretionary permissions, this did not terminate the service relationship or eliminate the right to charge fees. Mr W's investments remained with Charteris for several months while he arranged to move them elsewhere, and Charteris continued to provide administration, monitoring, and custodian services. The removal of discretionary authority actually increased Charteris' administrative burden by requiring it to seek client permission for any portfolio changes. The Ombudsman was satisfied that Charteris continued to provide ongoing service and that the servicing was not reduced to such an extent that it was unreasonable to continue collecting agreed fees. However, the Ombudsman found that Charteris provided unclear information regarding whether the service had converted to advisory and failed to clarify whether it could sell assets to cover fees, warranting compensation for confusion and frustration caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website