Partially upheld: service withdrawal, power of attorney handling, cross-border regulatory restrictions, fee charging for undelivered service complaint against Chase de Vere Independent Financial Advisers Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6211345 of 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00. service withdrawal, power of attorney handling, cross-border regulatory restrictions, fee charging for undelivered service complaint against Chase de Vere Independent Financial Advisers Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6211345 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Chase de Vere Independent Financial Advisers Limited |
| Product | investment ISA |
| Claim type | service withdrawal, power of attorney handling, cross-border regulatory restrictions, fee charging for undelivered service |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Chase must repay all fees charged for the ISA from August 2024 to the date of termination in August 2025, plus add to that sum any growth that would have occurred within the ISA during that period if those fees had not been charged. Chase is not liable for costs of transferring the account to another provider. |
Summary
Mrs P complained that Chase de Vere refused to discuss her financial affairs with her daughter Ms P1, who holds a registered Lasting Power of Attorney, citing lack of cross-border regulatory agreements and requiring UK residency for advice. Chase also terminated the service relationship. The ombudsman found Chase was entitled to require UK residency for advice and to seek confirmation from Mrs P regarding the LPA, as these were reasonable regulatory and protective measures. However, the ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding that Chase should repay all fees charged from August 2024 to termination in August 2025 plus growth, as it could not properly service the account during this period. Chase was not found liable for transfer costs.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Chase was entitled to require UK residency for providing investment advice due to its regulatory cross border permissions, and Ms P1 had been informed of this requirement in the February 2023 letter. Chase was also entitled to seek confirmation from Mrs P before allowing Ms P1 to act under the LPA while Mrs P retained mental capacity, as this was a reasonable protective measure. However, Chase should not have charged fees from August 2024 onwards when it became aware it could not properly service the account due to Ms P1's overseas residency and the unresolved LPA verification issue.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Chase de Vere Independent Financial Advisers Limited, all decisions | 109 | 56% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website