Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against PFM Associates Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I, representing the estates of the late Mr and Mrs M, complained that financial advice provided by PFM Associates Limited between 2002 and 2006 regarding investment bonds, trusts, and estate planning was unsuitable. The complaint focused on the failure of trust arrangements to mitigate inheritance tax liability as intended, the suitability of investment risk levels given their ages, and lack of tax efficiency. The ombudsman found the advice was broadly suitable when considered as a whole, that the medium risk categorization was reasonable given their substantial estate and investment experience, and that the tax efficiency measures were appropriate. The ombudsman acknowledged that IHT planning is not an exact science and that subsequent legislative changes could not have been predicted, resulting in the complaint being not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered the advice as a whole rather than in isolation, recognizing that individual pieces of advice were inter-related. The ombudsman found that all trust arrangements had the potential to achieve IHT mitigation objectives where required, that the medium risk categorization was reasonable given Mr and Mrs M's substantial estate and investment experience, and that the tax efficiency measures were appropriate. The ombudsman acknowledged that IHT planning is not an exact science and that subsequent legislative changes and unforeseen circumstances (such as the need for a loan from the 2002 trust) could not have been predicted at the time of advice.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website