Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Fidelity International, trading as Financial Administration Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs K complained that Fidelity failed to promptly notify her of the First State Global Resources fund closure, which Fidelity learned about on 24 July 2018 but did not communicate to her until 21 November 2018. She sought compensation for financial losses from the delayed notification and distress caused by poor complaint handling in 2024. The ombudsman found that three weeks' notice was a reasonable period for Mrs K to take action, and that Fidelity met its regulatory obligations to treat customers fairly. The ombudsman rejected arguments based on DTR/MAR and Consumer Duty, and noted that Mrs K's six-year delay in complaining undermined her claim of significant impact. The complaint was not upheld and no award was made.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that the starting point was whether Fidelity acted wrongly, not whether Mrs K would have acted differently. While Fidelity could have notified earlier, three weeks was a reasonable period for Mrs K to consider her options and take action. The ombudsman rejected arguments based on DTR/MAR (which apply to issuers, not platform intermediaries), and found the Consumer Duty inapplicable to 2018 conduct. The ombudsman noted that Mrs K's delay in complaining (until 2024) suggested she was not significantly impacted by the November 2018 notification, and that a firm is not required to address every point in a complaint response to comply with regulatory duties.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website