“I can’t really see why X would have visited Mr G a second time if he was just providing information. Or why TPWM didn’t simply write to Mr G.
“The personal contact from a person with a long standing IFA relationship with Mr G makes it far more likely that some form of recommendation was given in that meeting.”
He concluded the actions of the adviser, working for True Potential, amounted to regulated advice.
The report went on to say: “Overall, I don’t think that the way Mr G was treated was fair or reasonable.
“He was given, what amounted to a recommendation at the beginning. But it wasn’t properly considered.
“It meant that he ended up in a more expensive product in a less suitable investment portfolio.”
What was True Potential told to do?
In order to now treat Mr G fairly, True Potential was told to compensate the pensioner.
This involved comparing the performance of his current investments to what would have happened if he had remained in his original arrangement.
The firm was told to pay him another £300 to compensate for the “distress and inconvenience caused”.
Mr G was given until December 18 to accept the ombudsman’s decision.
True Potential was approached for comment.
tara.o'connor@ft.com
What's your view?
Have your say in the comments section below or email us: ftadviser.newsdesk@ft.com
