The client, referred to as Mrs D, made her complaint to the ombudsman alleging that Fidelity misinformed her about a Sipp investment request she made.
Complaint
According to the complaint, Mrs D instructed the Sipp to purchase investment trusts on 8 August 2016.
She was told by Fidelity over the phone that this would be possible, however this was not the case.
Four days later, Fidelity sent a secure message to Mrs D explaining what she had requested was not possible.
The company expected Mrs D to respond to this but she did not.
“It was not until 17 August 2016, that Mrs D was made aware that she would need to make alternative choices,” the ombudsman said.
Mrs D made an alternative choice, but this caused a delay in processing by several days.
Fidelity calculated the potential financial loss and found Ms D had been disadvantaged in six funds.
“On 30 August 2016, Fidelity purchased the extra units within the six funds which amounted to £712.38. It also sent £100 ($142, €115) to Mrs D for the distress and inconvenience she had suffered,” the ombudsman report said.
Mrs D disagreed with this redress, and believed that Fidelity should calculate her loss based on the original investment trusts she wanted to hold in the Sipp.
However, Fidelity said it would be unable to do this because, although Mrs D was misinformed, the original instructions she made were not possible.
Decision
The ombudsman said there was no denying Mrs D was misinformed about holding investment trusts in her Sipp.
However, it found that the way Fidelity calculated the loss for the delay to be correct.
“It is right that the switches should be backdated as though Mrs D made switches that would have been available within the Sipp on 8 August 2016.
“Finally, I note that Mrs D has spent a considerable amount of time in dealing with this complaint and I agree Mrs D will have suffered significant distress and inconvenience which warrants an award of £500.
“As Mrs D has already received £100 from Fidelity, I consider the further £400 should be paid to Mrs D,” the ombudsman found.
An additional complaint relating to the fees Mrs D was charged by Fidelity was not upheld by the ombudsman.
