Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against IM Asset Management Limited trading as Shackleton

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Shackleton caused financial loss by delaying the sale of his investments while he was preparing for a pension sharing order and tax-free cash withdrawal. When his regular Investment Manager DS became unavailable on 21 July 2025, Shackleton offered an alternative adviser, which Mr G rejected due to concerns about the adviser's experience. Mr G's portfolio declined by approximately £2,000 before he finally spoke with DS on 29 July 2025 and instructed the sales. The ombudsman found that while Shackleton's use of an adviser was permitted and the adviser could have processed the instructions, Shackleton failed to clearly communicate when DS would be available. The ombudsman rejected the financial loss claim but upheld the complaint regarding poor communication, accepting Shackleton's offer of £250 compensation as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr G was disappointed DS was unavailable, Shackleton's Terms of Business permitted contact with colleagues where necessary. The adviser could have taken Mr G's instructions and worked with the Investment Team to execute the sales, as Shackleton operates a centralised Investment Team structure. However, the ombudsman found that Shackleton could have handled communication better by being clearer upfront about when DS or another Investment Manager would be available. Had this been communicated clearly, Mr G would likely have chosen to wait until 29 July 2025 when DS became available, rather than proceeding with the adviser. The ombudsman rejected the claim for financial loss (the £2,000 portfolio decline) but accepted that Shackleton's failure to answer when DS would return caused distress and inconvenience, making the £250 offer fair compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website