Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Westminster Wealth Management LLP

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B complained to the FOS about Westminster Wealth Management LLP regarding advice to retain her pension on the IPP platform despite her reservations based on negative previous experience, and regarding the adequacy of ongoing advisory service. The ombudsman found that the platform recommendation was suitable because it was fit for purpose, charges were competitive, and alternative providers offered no guarantee of better service at potentially higher cost. Although WWM failed to provide a definitive scope of ongoing service and issued an incorrect pension illustration, the ombudsman found that Ms B received the requisite ongoing service in practice and suffered no meaningful detriment. The complaint was not upheld, and the £100 compensation already offered by WWM was deemed sufficient for the procedural errors.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that WWM's recommendation to retain the IPP platform was suitable because: (1) the platform was fit for purpose in holding and administering Ms B's pension; (2) the platform's charges were competitive and reasonable; (3) there was no guarantee that an alternative provider would offer better service; and (4) pursuing higher-cost alternatives would likely hinder the pension's growth objective, which was the priority. Regarding ongoing service, although WWM failed to provide a definitive scope of service and issued an incorrect illustration, the ombudsman found that Ms B received the requisite ongoing service as a matter of fact, including regular reviews, monitoring, and assistance with administrative matters. The procedural failures did not result in meaningful detriment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website