Upheld: unsuitable investment advice / mis-selling complaint against Ascot Lloyd Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6322803 of 2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00. unsuitable investment advice / mis-selling complaint against Ascot Lloyd Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6322803 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ascot Lloyd Limited |
| Product | investment (AIM portfolio) |
| Claim type | unsuitable investment advice / mis-selling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Ascot Lloyd must: (1) Compare the performance of the AIM portfolios against a benchmark comprising 50% FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index and 50% average fixed rate bond rates from Bank of England, calculated from date of investment to date ceased to be held; (2) Pay the difference between fair value (using benchmark) and actual value if fair value exceeds actual value; (3) Add 8% simple interest per year on any loss from end date to settlement date; (4) Pay £300 for distress and inconvenience caused; (5) Provide calculation details in clear, simple format; (6) Pay compensation within 28 calendar days of acceptance of final decision, or pay 8% simple interest per year on loss for any period following the deadline. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs H, retired investors in their late 60s and 70s with a low-medium risk profile, received advice from Ascot Lloyd in 2023 to invest £100,000 each in AIM portfolios to mitigate their estimated £400,000 IHT liability. The AIM portfolios were assessed as highest risk (10/10) and represented 30% of their non-pension investable assets. When Mr and Mrs H encashed the investments in March 2025 following Government changes to BPR rules, they had lost approximately £22,000 each. The ombudsman upheld their complaint, finding the advice unsuitable because it exposed them to excessive risk relative to their risk profile, capacity to absorb losses, and need for accessible funds for discretionary spending and potential care. The ombudsman ordered compensation based on a 50/50 benchmark of equity index and fixed-rate bonds, plus £300 for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that the initial suitability of the AIM investment advice was the heart of the complaint, rather than the timing of encashment. Although Mr and Mrs H expressed willingness to take extra risk for IHT benefits, the ombudsman found that Ascot Lloyd failed to properly weigh their objectives, attitude to risk, and capacity to absorb losses. The AIM portfolios represented the highest risk level (10/10) and constituted 30% of their non-pension investable assets, which was disproportionate for investors with a low-medium risk profile (5/10). The ombudsman noted that Mr and Mrs H needed accessible funds for discretionary spending and potential care purposes, and that the term assurance policy already provided cover for a proportion of IHT liability. The ombudsman concluded that other options were not fully explored and that suitable advice would have led to a different investment approach.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ascot Lloyd Limited, all decisions | 26 | 64% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website