Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Computershare Investor Services Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Computershare provided unclear and misleading information about his SAYE plan values, leading him to end his employment early in November 2025 and stop contributing to one plan in March 2026. He discovered that when he exercised his options, he received significantly fewer shares (1,916 instead of 4,145) than the app had displayed (4,145 options), resulting in approximately £10,000 less than expected. Mr G argued the app should have shown pro-rata values based on his actual contributions rather than the full amount assuming three years of contributions. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, concluding that the app display and phone calls were clear and fair when considered in the context of how SAYE schemes operate, and that Computershare had adequately explained that early leavers receive only shares proportionate to their contributions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the app information must be considered in the context of the wider scheme information Mr G had received, not in isolation. The app display included indicators (such as the estimated gain figure and the static number of options despite ongoing contributions) that suggested it reflected the position at the end of three years, not the current entitlement. The 15 October 2025 call clearly explained that figures were estimates based on completing all three years and that Mr G, as an early leaver, would only receive shares proportionate to his contributions. While Mr G struggled to absorb this information due to the shock of redundancy, the call handler provided clear information that Mr G could not reasonably have misunderstood. Subsequent calls did not give Mr G reason to believe he would receive the full number of options. The call handler in the 14 November call reasonably interpreted Mr G's mention of 3,170 options as a hypothetical question rather than a statement of expected entitlement.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website