Upheld: mis-selling / unsuitable product recommendation complaint against Fair Investment Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Fair Investment Company Limited mis-sold him an income protection policy taken out in 2015. In October 2013, Mr G had informed the advisor that as a business partner he would continue receiving income if ill and would need to fund a replacement after four weeks, and he specifically queried the suitability of income protection cover. Despite this, Fair Investment recommended a policy with a one-month deferred period that paid £2,500 monthly. When Mr G claimed in 2025, the claim was declined because he had continuing income from the partnership. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the policy was fundamentally unsuitable for Mr G's identified needs and circumstances, as he was unlikely to access the core benefit for approximately 12 months due to his continuing income. Fair Investment was directed to refund all premiums paid plus 8% simple interest per annum.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Fair Investment, as an advisor, had a responsibility to ensure the recommended policy was suitable for Mr G's demands and needs. Mr G had clearly identified in October 2013 that he would have continuing income for approximately 12 months and specifically queried the suitability of income protection cover in his circumstances. The recommended policy with a one-month deferred period was fundamentally unsuitable because Mr G was unlikely to access the core benefit for around 12 months due to his continuing income. The application form did not reflect the information Mr G had provided about his continuing benefits and income, suggesting it was not adequately considered in the recommendation. The fact that Mr G's claim was subsequently declined due to continuing income demonstrates the policy was unsuitable for his actual needs.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website