Upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Ms H complained that Succession Wealth Management Limited (SWM) unfairly charged her a monthly retainer fee in addition to an annual percentage ongoing advice charge after acquiring her previous adviser's firms in 2017. SWM argued the retainer was for separate unregulated services and outside FOS jurisdiction, but the ombudsman found the retainer duplicated services already covered by the annual charge and fell within regulated activities. The ombudsman determined Ms H could not have known she had cause to complain until 2022 when she discovered the fee was going to SWM rather than her adviser personally, bringing the complaint within the three-year time limit. Finding no evidence of additional services provided and no fair justification for charging an additional fee for adviser selection, the ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered SWM to refund all retainer payments with interest plus £150 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although SWM argued the retainer related to unregulated services outside FOS jurisdiction, the evidence showed the retainer was for essentially the same regulated advice and ancillary activities already covered by the OAC. The ombudsman determined that each monthly fee constituted a distinct event within the six-year limitation period, and Ms H could not have known she had cause to complain until 2022 when she discovered the fee was going to SWM rather than Mr X. The ombudsman found no evidence that SWM provided any additional services to Ms H beyond those covered by the OAC, and that even if the retainer was simply to ensure Ms H retained Mr X as her adviser, this would not justify charging an additional fee as it involved no cost to SWM and was not mentioned in SWM's literature or fee schedule. The ombudsman concluded the retainer was unfairly charged as it duplicated the OAC or charged for something (adviser selection) that should not incur an additional fee.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website