Upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Berkeley, Burke & Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6410489 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against Berkeley, Burke & Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6410489 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Berkeley, Burke & Company Limited |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | BB must compare the Trust's investment performance with the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index from the date of investment to the date the service ceased. BB must pay the difference between the fair value (what the investment would have been worth using the benchmark) and the actual value. BB must add 8% simple interest per year on any loss from the end date to settlement. BB must also repay the £600 adviser fee paid in September 2013 plus 8% simple interest from the date paid to settlement. Payment must be made within 28 calendar days of acceptance of the decision. |
Summary
The trustees of the W Discretionary Trust complained about investment advice and service from Berkeley, Burke & Company Limited between 2013 and 2020. The Trust was established to fund school fees and required capital growth. Although BB assessed the trustees' risk profile and discussed investment objectives, it failed to establish the specific growth rate needed to meet school fee costs, despite trustees repeatedly requesting this analysis. BB promised follow-up advice, research, and twice-yearly reviews but failed to deliver these, leaving trustees without valuations, suitability reports, or meaningful responses to their questions. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding BB breached its regulatory obligations to provide suitable ongoing advice. BB must compensate the Trust by comparing its actual investment performance against the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index benchmark and paying any shortfall plus interest, and must repay separately charged adviser fees with interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while BB assessed the trustees' risk profile initially, it failed to provide suitable ongoing advice and failed to deliver promised follow-up reports and recommendations. The key failing was that BB never established or confirmed the growth rate needed to meet the Trust's school fee objectives, despite this being discussed multiple times. Trustees repeatedly asked for guidance on whether the investments would be sufficient to meet their objectives, but these queries were never meaningfully addressed. The adviser promised follow-up advice, research, and twice-yearly reviews but failed to deliver. The lack of valuations, suitability reports, and meaningful responses to trustee queries meant the trustees could not make informed decisions and were left in a false sense of security. The ombudsman rejected BB's argument that lack of documentation meant obligations weren't fulfilled, finding instead that the trustees' testimony about what they received was credible and that BB's failure to provide promised advice constituted a breach of regulatory obligations.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley, Burke & Company Limited, all decisions | 3 | 67% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,175 | 37% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,229 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website