Not upheld: fee entitlement; advice service quality; insistent client handling complaint against Origen Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6251418 of 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00. fee entitlement; advice service quality; insistent client handling complaint against Origen Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6251418 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Origen Financial Services Limited |
| Product | pension |
| Claim type | fee entitlement; advice service quality; insistent client handling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No award made. Origen's already-reduced fee of £4,969.65 (reduced from £6,626.20) is upheld as fair and reasonable. |
Summary
Mrs M instructed Origen in November 2024 to help her access 25% tax-free cash from her pension to gift to her son. After initial delays due to a name discrepancy, Origen issued a formal advice report in June 2025 recommending phased withdrawals over four years for IHT efficiency. Mrs M insisted on taking the full lump sum immediately, becoming an insistent client. The process was complicated by ceding scheme requirements for Mrs M to personally return documentation and a confusing letter from Origen referring to the original advice. Mrs M withdrew from the process in August 2025 after hospitalization, having lost confidence. She refused to pay Origen's £6,626.20 fee. The ombudsman upheld Origen's entitlement to payment (reduced to £4,969.65 by Origen) as substantial work had been completed, finding no objective justification in Origen's conduct to prevent payment despite minor service improvements being possible.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Origen was entitled to charge the agreed fee for substantial work completed, including analysis, internal panel review, suitability reporting, and processing of insistent client compliance approval. Although Mrs M withdrew from the process due to loss of confidence following hospitalization, the ombudsman determined there was no objective justification in Origen's conduct to prevent payment. The ombudsman identified minor service improvements (the 26 June letter caused confusion and the adviser could have better explained why precise confirmation was needed) but these did not warrant refunding the fee, particularly given Origen's 25% reduction. The ombudsman found Origen properly handled Mrs M's insistent client status in accordance with COBS 9.5A requirements and that the timeframe from March to June 2025 was reasonable.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Origen Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 88 | 26% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website