Not upheld: insufficient notice of corporate action / shareholder rights issue complaint against Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6199705 of 2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00. insufficient notice of corporate action / shareholder rights issue complaint against Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6199705 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited |
| Product | investment account |
| Claim type | insufficient notice of corporate action / shareholder rights issue |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman instructed EP to take no further action. |
Summary
Mrs R, as lead trustee of the R Will Trust, complained that EP failed to provide sufficient prior notice of a shareholder rights issue for NG shares held in a GIA, resulting in financial loss. The rights issue was announced on 23 May 2024, issued by the custodian on 24 May 2024, and communicated by EP to Mrs R on 28 May 2024, with a deadline of 4 June 2024 to exercise the rights. Mrs R argued the notification lacked detail and did not offer a cashless option, and that she was away from her desk when notified. The ombudsman found that EP and the custodian acted as quickly as possible with no unnecessary delays, that the notification provided sufficient information, and that EP was not required to offer a cashless alternative. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that EP and the custodian acted as quickly as possible given the timeline of events. The announcement on 23 May, custodian issuance on 24 May, and EP notification on 28 May (following a bank holiday) represented no unnecessary delays. The notification provided sufficient information for an informed decision, including two clear options and a reasonable deadline of 4 June 2024. While the ombudsman acknowledged it was regrettable that EP did not inform Mrs R that notification had been sent to her usual email address despite her request for alternative contact, this did not constitute unreasonable conduct as the usual email address remained appropriate and Mrs R would likely have seen the notification before expiry.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited, all decisions | 22 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website