Veste

Not upheld: General financial advice complaint against NFU Mutual Select Investments Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-9377674 of 2017-08-04T00:00:00+00:00. General financial advice complaint against NFU Mutual Select Investments Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-9377674
Decision date2017-08-04T00:00:00+00:00
FirmNFU Mutual Select Investments Limited
ProductSavings / ISA
Claim typeGeneral financial advice
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo award made. No remedy ordered.

Summary

Mrs C complained that NFU Mutual charged her 3.5% in advice fees when she believed she had been told the fee would be 1.25%, and that the fee should only apply to £15,000 rather than the full £27,000 investment. She also believed the advice should have been free as part of her NFU membership. The ombudsman found that the 1.25% figure was the annual management charge, not the advice fee, and that the 3.5% advice charge was clearly set out in separate sections of the documentation Mrs C received and signed. The ombudsman also determined that the second £12,000 payment was part of the initial investment, not a top-up, making it appropriate to charge 3.5% on the full amount. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the 3.5% advice fee was clearly distinguished from the 1.25% annual management charge in the documentation provided to Mrs C. The documents explicitly set out the advice charges separately from product charges, and Mrs C signed a form confirming her understanding. The second payment of £12,000 was part of the initial investment rather than a top-up, making it appropriate to charge 3.5% on the full £27,000. Mrs C had the opportunity to question the fees during the 30-day cancellation period and was made aware that she could choose not to receive advice.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
NFU Mutual Select Investments Limited, all decisions425%
General financial advice, all decisions4,57836%
Savings / ISA, all decisions7,66722%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website