Upheld: unreasonable delay in processing encashment and improper holding of proceeds in non-interest bearing account complaint against Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6305152 of 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. unreasonable delay in processing encashment and improper holding of proceeds in non-interest bearing account complaint against Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6305152 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited |
| Product | investment fund (unit trust held within a self-invested personal pension) |
| Claim type | unreasonable delay in processing encashment and improper holding of proceeds in non-interest bearing account |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited must: (1) Calculate the notional value of continued investment in Merlin Income Portfolio as at 20 May 2025 and compare to actual value released; (2) Pay compensation equal to any shortfall; (3) Pay simple interest at 8% per annum on compensation from 20 May 2025 to settlement date; (4) Provide calculation details in clear, simple format; (5) Handle any income tax deduction on interest component and provide tax deduction certificate if requested; (6) Pay £75 compensation for administrative errors (failure to provide call back and 2021 correspondence copies) if not already paid; (7) Provide copies of 2021 correspondence if not already provided. |
Summary
Mr B complained that Jupiter delayed processing an encashment of his SIPP investment for five months while holding the proceeds in a non-interest bearing account. The delay was caused by outstanding Anti-Money Laundering requirements on the corporate trustee (J) that had been outstanding since 2021. Although Jupiter's need to conduct AML checks was legitimate, the ombudsman found it should not have immediately sold down the investment and crystallized the redemption value while AML remained incomplete. Instead, Jupiter should have either kept the funds invested pending AML completion or obtained Mr B's informed consent to the non-interest bearing account arrangement. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered compensation based on the notional continued investment value plus 8% simple interest from the date of release to settlement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Jupiter should not have treated the withdrawal request as 'valid' under COLL 6.2.16R because one of the two trustees had not completed AML requirements that had been outstanding since 2021. While Jupiter's need to conduct AML checks was legitimate and necessary, it should have either kept the funds invested pending completion of AML or obtained Mr B's informed consent before crystallizing the redemption value and placing proceeds in a non-interest bearing account. The ombudsman rejected Jupiter's argument that it could not know Mr B's circumstances, finding that Mr B would not have chosen to forego deposit interest for an indefinite period and would have preferred to remain invested in the Jupiter fund pending AML completion. The non-interest bearing account was intended for short-term dealing delays, not extended periods caused by third-party AML delays.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited, all decisions | 13 | 15% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website