Upheld: unsuitable investment management / mis-selling of discretionary managed pension service complaint against Fogwill & Jones Asset Management Limited, trading as Fogwill & Jones Wealth Management (FJWM)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6248472 of 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00. unsuitable investment management / mis-selling of discretionary managed pension service complaint against Fogwill & Jones Asset Management Limited, trading as Fogwill & Jones Wealth Management (FJWM). Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6248472 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Fogwill & Jones Asset Management Limited, trading as Fogwill & Jones Wealth Management (FJWM) |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | unsuitable investment management / mis-selling of discretionary managed pension service |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | FJWM must compare the actual value of Mr N's pension as at the decision date with its notional value had it been invested 50% in the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index and 50% in average fixed rate bond returns. If this demonstrates a loss, FJWM must: (1) in the first instance pay compensation into Mr N's pension plan to increase its value by the loss amount, allowing for charges and tax relief; (2) if unable to pay into the pension plan, pay the amount directly to Mr N; (3) apply no notional tax deduction as Mr N is assumed to be a nil rate taxpayer in retirement; (4) pay within 28 days of Mr N's acceptance, or 8% per annum simple interest applies from the decision date to settlement date. |
Summary
Mr N complained that his pension drawdown portfolio, which he understood was invested in accordance with a low to medium risk rating, suffered substantial losses from £107,688 (January 2022) to £70,941 (June 2023). FJWM had invested the pension with 54% in equities and 25% in property at outset (August 2017), approximately 80% in medium to high-risk assets, despite Mr N's June 2017 meeting notes recording him as 'worried sick about stock markets', seeking guarantees against capital loss, and preferring lower volatility even if it meant lower returns. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the portfolio allocation was unsuitable and inconsistent with Mr N's cautious risk profile and expressed preferences. The ombudsman rejected FJWM's defences regarding Mr N's apparent acceptance of 60% equity exposure, the relevance of his non-withdrawal of funds, and the impact of annual review declines. FJWM was directed to calculate compensation by comparing actual pension value to a notional value invested 50% in the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index and 50% in fixed rate bond returns, with any loss to be paid into the pension plan or directly to Mr N within 28 days plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Mr N's meeting notes presented a coherent and consistent picture of a risk-averse investor prioritising certainty, capital stability and simplicity. Despite FJWM's assertion that Mr N was comfortable with up to 60% equity exposure, the contemporaneous evidence showed Mr N was 'worried sick' about stock markets, sought guarantees against capital loss, and explicitly preferred lower volatility even if it meant lower returns. The initial portfolio allocation of 54% equities and 25% property (approximately 80% in medium to high-risk assets) was fundamentally inconsistent with a cautious risk profile. Even the reduced allocation of around 60% in medium to high-risk assets between 2022-2023 remained excessive for a cautious investor. The ombudsman rejected FJWM's arguments that: (1) lack of withdrawals indicated Mr N didn't need income protection (risk appetite and income needs are separate considerations); (2) property was a low-risk diversifier in 2017 (property carries liquidity risk and cyclical economic risk beyond interest rate considerations); and (3) annual review declines were relevant (Mr N's risk attitude hadn't changed, so reviews wouldn't have altered the outcome). The ombudsman concluded the portfolio should have been invested in a genuinely cautious allocation reflecting Mr N's stated preferences.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Fogwill & Jones Asset Management Limited, trading as Fogwill & Jones Wealth Management (FJWM), all decisions | 1 | 100% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,409 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website