Upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5859399 of 2025-10-03T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5859399 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-10-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Other regulated complaint |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | SWM must refund all retainer payments not already refunded, plus 8% simple interest from the date each payment was taken until settlement. SWM must also pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs F complained that SWM unfairly charged them a monthly retainer fee in addition to an annual percentage ongoing advice charge (OAC) for wealth management services. SWM claimed the retainer was for separate unregulated services provided by adviser Mr X, but the ombudsman found no evidence that distinct services were provided beyond those covered by the OAC. The services Mr and Mrs F actually received (annual investment reviews, portfolio management, tax efficiency assessment) aligned with SWM's stated OAC offering. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the retainer was either duplicative of the OAC or an unjustified fee to retain a particular adviser, and ordered SWM to refund all retainer payments with interest plus £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that although SWM claimed the retainer was for unregulated services separate from the OAC, the evidence showed the services Mr and Mrs F actually received aligned with the regulated and ancillary services covered by the OAC. The retainer was either duplicating the OAC or was simply a fee to retain a particular adviser, neither of which was fairly charged. The complaint fell within FOS jurisdiction as it related to regulated activities and ancillary activities. The time limit was satisfied as Mr and Mrs F could not have known they had cause to complain until 2022 when they discovered the fee was going to SWM rather than Mr X.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED, all decisions | 10 | 85% |
| Other regulated complaint, all decisions | 19,202 | 17% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,114 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website