Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6157434 of 2026-02-18T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6157434 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Succession Wealth Management Limited must pay Mr and Mrs H £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by derogatory comments in the recommendation report regarding Mrs H's investment knowledge and experience. No further compensation is due. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs H complained that Succession Wealth Management caused unnecessary delays in encashing their Investment Bond and sold down their Stocks and Shares ISAs without clear instruction. Following acquisition of their previous advisor, Mr and Mrs H requested disinvestment on 28 November 2023. Succession provided a recommendation report on 20 December 2023 recommending full sell-down of both products. The Investment Bond funds were received on 11 January 2024, and their son incurred a mortgage penalty fee. The ombudsman found that Succession was required to provide a suitability report under FCA regulations, the three-week timeframe was reasonable, and Mr and Mrs H's ambiguous instruction regarding ISAs did not clearly indicate partial transfer only. The ombudsman upheld only the complaint regarding derogatory comments about Mrs H's investment knowledge, awarding £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Succession was required to provide a recommendation report before actioning the Investment Bond surrender under FCA COBS 9.4.2R, which requires a suitability report for personal recommendations on life policies. The three-week timeframe to produce the report (28 November to 20 December 2023) was reasonable given that Mr and Mrs H were new clients to Succession requiring full onboarding, data transfer from legacy systems, and tax calculations on a substantial surrender of approximately £160,000. The Christmas holiday closure was not Succession's responsibility. Regarding the ISAs, while Succession's involvement in advising on the ISA transfers was limited, the recommendation report clearly stated a full sell-down, and Mr and Mrs H's statement about 'arrangements being made to transfer the remaining ISA funds' was ambiguous. Mr and Mrs H should have given clearer instructions if they only intended a partial sell-down. Furthermore, Mr and Mrs H were aware of the full sell-down by 29 December 2023 but failed to mitigate losses by reinvesting the residual funds when offered the opportunity on 3 January 2024.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| SUCCESSION WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED, all decisions | 10 | 85% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,206 | 37% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,114 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website