Upheld: irresponsible investment processing, poor communication, inadequate complaint handling complaint against James Brearley & Sons Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6201370 of 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible investment processing, poor communication, inadequate complaint handling complaint against James Brearley & Sons Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6201370 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | James Brearley & Sons Limited |
| Product | structured investment product |
| Claim type | irresponsible investment processing, poor communication, inadequate complaint handling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | No further action required. Existing £250 compensation payment is deemed fair and reasonable. |
Summary
Mr B complained that JB confused and disrupted his efforts to reinvest funds in a structured product by incorrectly stating his cash would earn interest and investing a different amount than he specified. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding JB failed to act with skill, care and diligence as required by regulatory standards. However, since JB had already paid £250 compensation which covered lost interest and addressed the investment discrepancy, and the remaining compensation element was fair for the distress caused, no further action was required.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
JB failed to uphold regulatory requirements (PRIN 2.1.1 R and COBS 2.1.1 R) by providing incorrect information about interest and investing a different amount than specified without clarification. However, JB addressed the financial losses by enabling Mr B to invest the cash difference and the £250 compensation covers lost interest. The remaining compensation element (over £100) for distress and inconvenience is fair and reasonable as the events caused only modest inconvenience without the severity typically seen in higher compensation cases.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| James Brearley & Sons Limited, all decisions | 8 | 44% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website