Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Redmayne-Bentley LLP

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Redmayne-Bentley LLP mis-sold him a corporate bond in 2014, which performed poorly and matured in 2023. He was subsequently offered the option to extend the bond to 2027. The ombudsman found that RB provided an execution-only service, not personal advice, as confirmed by the Welcome Letter and Nominee Account Agreement. No suitability report or fact-find was completed, supporting that no advice was given. RB's obligation was limited to providing clear information and executing instructions accurately. The ombudsman concluded that poor investment performance does not indicate mis-selling and that RB merely informed Mr E of the extension option as a corporate action. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that RB provided an execution-only service, not personal advice. The Welcome Letter and Nominee Account Agreement form confirmed this service level. The absence of a suitability report or fact-find supported that no advice was given. Under FCA regulations, customers may invest without advice, with responsibility for assessing suitability remaining with the customer. RB's obligation was to provide clear information and execute instructions accurately. Poor investment performance alone does not indicate mis-selling. Regarding the bond extension, RB merely informed Mr E of the option available as a corporate action and did not advise him to extend.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website