Not upheld: ISA / savings administration complaint against Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Evelyn Partners should reimburse him for tax on ISA investment returns and accountancy fees (totalling over £6000) incurred for 2020-2022, claiming Evelyn advised him to pay into an ISA despite knowing he was no longer UK resident and therefore ineligible. Mr R had informed Evelyn multiple times that he was living and working in France. The ombudsman found that Evelyn's March 2021 letter advised Mr R to use his ISA allowance only if eligible, and Evelyn obtained declarations from Mr R in 2022 stating he was UK tax resident for tax purposes. While Evelyn knew Mr R was abroad, determining UK tax residency depends on specific facts (time in UK, work hours abroad, previous status) known only to Mr R, which he never disclosed or asked Evelyn to assess. The ombudsman concluded Evelyn was not at fault and did not uphold the complaint, as Evelyn's service was limited to investment management and did not include tax advice.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Evelyn did not advise Mr R he was eligible for an ISA; rather, it advised him to use his allowance if he were eligible. Evelyn obtained declarations from Mr R stating he was UK resident for tax purposes, which is a requirement for ISA contributions. While Evelyn knew Mr R was living and working abroad, this does not automatically mean he was not UK tax resident for tax purposes - that determination depends on specific facts known only to Mr R (such as time spent in the UK, work hours abroad, and previous residency status). Mr R did not inform Evelyn he was not UK tax resident, nor did he ask Evelyn to assess his tax residency status or ISA eligibility. The ombudsman concluded that Mr R, knowing he was living and working abroad, should have either been certain before signing declarations stating he was UK resident, or asked Evelyn for clarification. Evelyn's service was limited to investment management and did not include tax advice, so it was not responsible for accountancy fees incurred to amend French tax returns.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website