Upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5859498 of 2025-10-03T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5859498 |
|---|---|
| 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 B complained that SWM unfairly charged them a monthly retainer fee in addition to an annual percentage ongoing advice charge (OAC) after acquiring their previous adviser's firms in 2017. SWM claimed the retainer was for unregulated services separate from the OAC and represented a continuation of legacy arrangements. However, the ombudsman found that the services Mr and Mrs B actually received (investment management, portfolio assessment, tax planning) were regulated or ancillary to regulated advice and were already covered by the OAC. The retainer was not adequately explained in writing and SWM provided no evidence of delivering distinct additional services. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered SWM to refund all retainer payments plus interest and £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 B actually received (investment management, portfolio assessment, tax efficiency considerations, liaison with accountants) were either regulated advice or ancillary to regulated advice, and were already covered by the OAC. The retainer was not adequately explained in writing at the time of acquisition, and SWM provided no evidence of delivering distinct additional services. Even if the retainer was simply to ensure Mr X remained their adviser, this would not justify a separate charge as it involved no additional cost to SWM and was not mentioned in SWM's literature or fee schedule. The complaint fell within the ombudsman's jurisdiction as it related to regulated activities and ancillary activities connected to regulated advice.
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