Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5746424 of 2025-08-11T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5746424 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-08-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Limited |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Limited must pay Mrs W £100 in compensation for confusion and frustration caused by unclear information regarding the nature of the service following removal of discretionary permissions. |
Summary
Mrs W complained that Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers continued to charge her Annual Management Charges (AMC) of approximately 1.25% plus VAT after she removed its discretionary management permissions in April 2024. Mrs W argued that without discretionary authority, Charteris was providing no service and therefore had no right to charge fees. The ombudsman found that although discretionary permissions were removed, Mrs W's investments remained with Charteris for several months while she arranged to move to another adviser, and Charteris continued to provide ongoing administration, monitoring, and additional administrative steps to seek client permission for portfolio changes. The ombudsman upheld Charteris' right to continue charging the agreed AMC but awarded £100 compensation for providing unclear information about whether the service had converted to advisory, which caused Mrs W confusion and frustration.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that although Mrs W removed Charteris' discretionary permissions, she did not terminate her relationship with Charteris or expect services to end. Mrs W's investments remained with Charteris for several months while she arranged to move to another adviser, and she did not want to self-manage her investments. Charteris continued to provide ongoing administration and monitoring services, including account monitoring, corporate actions handling, and seeking client permission for necessary changes - which involved additional administrative steps compared to discretionary management. These services justified continued charging of the AMC. However, Charteris provided unclear information about whether the service had converted to advisory, causing confusion and frustration. The ombudsman awarded £100 compensation for poor communication but rejected the refund claim.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Charteris Treasury Portfolio Managers Limited, all decisions | 9 | 22% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,163 | 37% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,602 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website