According to the FOS report, a client known referred to as Ms M had complained about advice she received from David Stock & Company regarding her pension plans and investments.
Ms M did not believe she should have been advised to take her pension in 2011, as she was still working and had to pay tax on her income, the report said. The client had also complained that in 2013, when she recently sold a property and was holding the proceeds in a deposit account.
“Ms M was assessed as being prepared to take a cautious degree of risk. But Ms M’s main concern is that the business failed to ensure her investments fully utilised her annual ISA (individual savings account),” the report states.
Ombudsman Doug Mansell, however, determined the advice had been suitable.
“Overall, I don’t think it was unreasonable to advise Ms M to take her benefits in 2011. Although she’s had to pay tax on the income, I’ve not seen evidence this had placed her in a worse position than if she’d left the benefits until a later time,” Mr Mansell said.
“It’s also not clear Ms M had suffered any appreciable loss through not having part of her investment within an ISA.”
Despite this, the ombudsman decided to uphold the complaint “in part”, saying David Stock & Company should pay Ms M £100 for “the trouble and upset she’s been caused”.
IFAs need to improve customer service and improve engagement with their clients. At the moment there seems to be a sense of entitlement from advisers and a tone suggesting customers should be grateful for what they get (which seems to me not very much for an awful lot of money: £3,000 fee for recommending moving to a SIPP!?)
Also some advisers need to read the FOS decisions referred to in these articles so that they can understand the context a little better. If they took the time to find out the FOS model (i.e. anyone meeting the eligibility criteria can complain about their bank account no matter how little money is in it – its not just for affluent IFA clients) they would understand why charging customers to complain is a terrible idea which will never happen.
agree with Leo – if either party proceeds to FOS then it should be clear they take a chance of being liable for costs if wrong. At the moment it is all entirely weighted to the complainant who with even some basic legal assistance can mount a “no risk – all reward” attack on an Adviser. Left to continue we will see the death of advice as the litigation mounts up.
FOS is a joke, they have little structure, no consistency and the whole process is subjective at best and creates the ultimate cloying cotton wool society who want hand outs if something goes not quite the way they wanted.
Where does this nonsense end? In the complaints process all parties should have “skin” in the game. The client should be required to meet the costs of the adviser in a failed complaint not be awarded any compensation. The ombudsman service and its officers need review if they produce such ridiculous decisions. This lacks integrity and breeds contempt for the service.