Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Origen Financial Services Limited trading as Aegon Financial Planning

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained to Aegon about the ongoing investment advice service provided since February 2024, raising multiple concerns including inaccurate fee calculations in an illustration, unexplained fund switch recommendations, incompatible risk rating scales, alleged failure to provide tax advice, inadequate annual customer reporting, and delays in responding to enquiries. Aegon apologized for the incorrect OAC in the illustration but maintained it had provided reasonable service and explanations. The ombudsman found that while the illustration contained errors, Mr S was aware of the correct charges from his quarterly statements, that Aegon's risk rating system was permissible, that tax implications should be explained as part of investment advice, and that formal recommendations did not proceed because Mr S raised concerns early. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding Aegon had treated Mr S fairly in administering his portfolio and providing the ongoing advice service.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although the illustration contained an inaccurate OAC, Mr S was aware of the correct charges from his quarterly statements and had held the portfolio for many years. The ombudsman determined that Aegon's use of a 1-5 risk rating scale was permissible as there is no prescribed system under regulations. Regarding tax advice, the ombudsman found that while Aegon is not a specialist tax adviser, it should explain tax implications as part of investment advice, which is compatible with the Investment Planning Guide. The ombudsman concluded that formal fund switch recommendations did not proceed because Mr S raised concerns early, preventing the advice process from completing. The ombudsman found the ACR was bespoke despite including a typical portfolio graph, and that corporate actions could not be addressed before the complaint was made as the annual review had not commenced.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website