Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Downing LLP

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained to the FOS about Downing LLP's handling of his investment in a hotel scheme, specifically regarding a trading report that he felt misrepresented performance figures, the lack of a valuation, inadequate fee disclosure, and Downing's approach to communication including looking up his home address. The adjudicator and ombudsman both found no evidence of an obligation to provide regular reports, determined the trading report was not misleading as it clearly stated poor performance and justified its year-on-year comparison methodology, and concluded that Downing's communication approach and address verification were reasonable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the trading report was not misleading because the hotel's disappointing performance was clearly stated, and the comparison methodology (accounting year three to projection year two) was transparent and justified by the construction delay making accounting year one non-comparable to projection year one. There was no contractual obligation for Downing to provide regular reports or valuations. The firm's suggestion to communicate by phone or meeting was reasonable, and verifying the address for meeting convenience was appropriate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website