Not upheld: Unsuitable investment advice, alleged bullying and undue influence, misrepresentation of regulatory requirements complaint against Origen Financial Services Limited, trading as Aegon Financial Planning (AFP)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs T complained that during a financial review call on 17 December 2024 with a newly assigned FPM at AFP, they were asked intrusive questions, told they were too poor to invest, and pressured to cash in their Stocks and Shares ISAs (held since 2012) in favour of cash savings. The FPM recommended they needed £36,000 each in liquid savings to invest, which Mr and Mrs T argued was not a regulatory requirement. Mr and Mrs T rejected the advice at the time but subsequently cashed in their ISAs in February 2025 and sought compensation for losses. The ombudsman found that the FPM's questions were required under FCA regulations, the £36,000 figure was internal guidance (not regulatory), Mr and Mrs T had clearly rejected the advice during the call, and their later decision to encash was likely independent judgment made weeks later, not the result of pressure or undue influence.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the FPM's questions about financial circumstances were required under COBS 9.2 to assess suitability and were not inappropriate or intrusive. While the FPM incorrectly presented a £36,000 savings figure as a regulatory requirement when it was merely internal guidance, this did not cause financial loss because Mr and Mrs T challenged it at the time and rejected the advice entirely. The FPM made clear the decision was theirs to make, and they chose not to follow the recommendation during the call. The subsequent decision to encash in February 2025 was likely an independent judgment made weeks later after ending their relationship with AFP. The ombudsman found no indicators of vulnerability that should have prompted a different approach, and AFP's failure to disclose its restricted status did not cause financial loss in these circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website