Not upheld: Incorrect account allocation / ISA administration / failure to reactivate inactive ISA complaint against J.P. Morgan Personal Investing Limited (Nutmeg)

Decision detail

Summary

X complained that their March 2020 and April 2021 contributions to their Stocks and Shares ISA with Nutmeg were incorrectly allocated to their General Investment Account instead. X believed both payments were being made into their ISA and only discovered the error in February 2025. Nutmeg explained that the ISA had become inactive after X made no contribution in the 2018/19 tax year, and under HMRC rules at the time it could not be automatically reactivated, so subsequent payments had to be allocated to the GIA. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Nutmeg's allocation was correct under the applicable rules and that sufficient information was available through valuation reports, tax packs, and the digital platform to indicate the funds were not in an ISA, even if the presentation could have been clearer.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that under HMRC rules in force at the time, an ISA required at least one subscription in a tax year to remain active. Since X made no contribution in 2018/19, the ISA became inactive and could not be automatically reactivated. Nutmeg's terms and conditions explained this limitation of the auto-renew feature and made clear that clients were responsible for maintaining their ISA settings. While Nutmeg's presentation could have been clearer, sufficient information was available through multiple channels (valuation reports showing £0.00 ISA contributions, tax packs from 2020 onwards, and the digital platform) to indicate that funds were not being held within an ISA. In a self-service digital environment, some responsibility lies with the customer to monitor their account. The ombudsman also considered the Consumer Duty (applicable from 31 July 2023) and found that while communications could have been clearer, Nutmeg did not fail to meet the relevant standards.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website