Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs D complained that she received less from selling her Jupiter unit trust funds than the price quoted on Jupiter's website. Jupiter explained that it displays I-class unit prices as the default because most customers now hold this class via platforms, though retail class units are also available. The ombudsman found this practice was fair, reasonable, and clearly disclosed on the website. As Mrs D was an execution-only client with no advisory service, she bore responsibility for understanding the different unit classes and pricing. The ombudsman found no evidence that Jupiter underpaid Mrs D and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator that Jupiter's use of I-class prices as the default was justified and industry-standard, as most customers now hold I-class units via platforms. The website clearly explained the default unit class. As an execution-only client, Mrs D bore responsibility for understanding the pricing structure and seeking clarification if unclear. The differential charges between unit classes naturally result in different fund values over time, which does not constitute underpayment. No evidence demonstrated that Jupiter paid the wrong price for Mrs D's units.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website