Not upheld: service delay in report production and alleged failure to adequately communicate trading execution timescales complaint against EQ Investors Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that EQ Investors Limited delayed production of a recommendation report and failed to adequately inform him that his trading instructions given on 4 April 2025 could not be executed that day, resulting in significant losses when his pension assets were sold at lower prices on 7-8 April. The ombudsman found the report, delivered 11 working days after the meeting, was not significantly delayed given year-end pressures and regulatory requirements. More importantly, the ombudsman determined that mutual fund transactions were inherently impossible to execute before 7 April due to market cut-off times and T+2 settlement procedures, and that Mr S would likely have proceeded with the sale anyway given his stated concerns about imminent market volatility. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the 11-working-day report turnaround, though one day outside EQ's standard, was not significantly delayed given year-end pressures and was a regulatory requirement. Critically, the ombudsman determined that Mr S could have acted on his concerns without waiting for the report, as he already knew the recommendations and could have issued instructions earlier. Regarding the 4 April trading issue, the ombudsman found that by 3.31pm on 4 April, it was already impossible for mutual fund transactions to be executed before 7 April due to market cut-off times and settlement procedures. Even assuming EQ failed to adequately explain this, the ombudsman concluded on balance that Mr S would have proceeded with the sale anyway, given his stated concerns about imminent market volatility from tariff announcements and his expectation of further declines. The ombudsman discounted hindsight and focused on what Mr S would likely have done with the information available at the time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website