Quilter Financial Planning Solutions Limited · DRN-6065796

The complaint Mr M, with the help of a professional representative, has complained that Quilter Financial Planning Solutions Limited (“Quilter”) failed to inform him of the advice he would receive on an ongoing basis, and that ongoing advice reviews were not provided despite ongoing advice charges (OACs) having been deducted from his investment. In addition, Mr M complains he was charged excessive exit fees. What happened It’s important to first note that very little information has been provided from both parties on this complaint. In 2013 Mr M was advised by Positive Solutions (Financial Services) Limited to open an new pension. Positive Solutions (Financial Services) Limited has since rebranded to Quilter. So for ease of reading, I will only refer to the business as Quilter. In November 2024, the representative issued a letter of complaint on Mr M’s behalf complaining that Quilter had breached the contract of service, essentially by not completing annual reviews for which Mr M had paid. It also claimed that Mr M had been charged excessive exit fees. In order to resolve the matter, the representative requested that Quilter refund the annual fees. Quilter didn’t provide its final answer within the required eight weeks, and so Mr M brought his complaint to this Service. When Quilter did issue its final response letter dated 14 May 2025, it explained that Mr M had initially met with a Quilter adviser in 2009 as he required advice in relation to his pension and protection needs. Quilter went on to say Mr M held a Skandia/Old Mutual Wealth (OMW) pension that had generated OACs from August 2014 to June 2015. Quilter also said the complaint had been raised too late on the basis that more than six years had passed since Mr M first met the adviser in 2009, and because more than three years had passed since OACs paid to Quilter had ceased. Quilter also said it had been unable to identify any evidence of exit fees but offered to reconsider this point if further evidence could be provided. Mr M’s representative didn’t provide any supporting evidence, and Quilter has not been able to provide any point-of-sale documentation. Unhappy with Quilter’s answer Mr M continued with the complaint at this Service where it was assessed by one of our investigators. He disagreed that the complaint had been brought outside of the required time limits as set out in the Dispute Resolution Rules (“DISP”) under which this service is obliged to operate. But he also was of the view that the complaint couldn’t be upheld. He explained this was because Quilter had held the servicing rights for Mr M’s pension for only eleven months and that Mr M had moved away from Quilter before the review was due. So that alone didn’t mean the OACs should be refunded. He also reasoned that it seemed to him that Quilter had been ready willing and able to provide the annual reviews when it became due and so was entitled to keep the OACs Mr M

-- 1 of 3 --

had paid. And the fact that Mr M had transferred away from Quilter before the review was due was down to him. He also couldn’t find any evidence that Mr M suffered any exit fees. Mr M and his representative didn’t agree with the investigator’s assessment. So because of this the complaint has been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’ve taken into account relevant: law and regulations; regulatory rules; guidance and standards; codes of practice; and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Where the evidence is incomplete or inconclusive (as it is here) I’ve reached my decision based on the balance of probabilities – in other words, on what I think is more likely than not to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. As noted above while Quilter did raise a time bar objection, this was dealt with by the investigator in his assessment. As neither party argued against the investigator’s view on this point, I will presume that both parties agree to his findings. Therefore, I don’t intend to comment any further on the issue of the time bar. Turning now to the matter of the refund of the OACs. Mr M and his representative have said that the ongoing advice service was not provided by Quilter and so the OACs Mr M had paid for this service should be refunded. However, in this specific situation the reason why the review wasn’t provided to Mr M was not because Quilter failed to do anything such as fail to invite him for a review. Nor is there any evidence that Quilter wasn’t ready, willing or able to carry out the review as and when it became due. The reason the review didn’t take place was because of timing – essentially Mr M moved away from Quilter before the review was due to take place. I would expect an annual review to take place in or around the first twelve-month anniversary of the start date of an investment/plan. So, in this case the due date for the review would have been around August 2015. There is no dispute that Mr M had moved away from Quilter by this point, and I have seen the correspondence that confirms this. So, Mr M wasn’t a client when his review date came up therefore Quilter wasn’t able to carry out a review not for any reasons other than Mr M not being its client at the due date. Ultimately Quilter didn’t have the opportunity to offer Mr M a review or even have the opportunity to fail to carry out the review due to Mr M moving away from Quilter before the review was actually due. And just because it didn’t take place, for a valid reason, doesn’t mean that Mr M is entitled to a refund of the OACs he had paid for that review. I know the representative feels the FCA guidance quoted below is relevant here: “Unless there is evidence to show that the client was reasonably and proportionately offered a review we do not believe that he should have been charged on exit for the months prior that he has been charged for a service that was never delivered.” However, I don’t agree. I think the quote has been applied out o context. This part of the guidance is referring to whether a firm offered a review and made good attempts to ensure the client was notified about this – hence a client being reasonably and proportionately

-- 2 of 3 --

offered a review. And as I have explained above Quilter didn’t have the opportunity to invite Mr M for a review because he ceased to be Quilter’s client before the review was due. Overall, in this case I am satisfied that Quilter didn’t fail to carry out the review that was due, nor did it fail to invite Mr M for a review when the due date came around. The reason the review didn’t take place was because Mr M moved away from Quilter before its due date. So, through no fault of Quilter did the review not take place. I therefore see no reason why the OACs Mr M had paid for the eleven months he was with Quilter should be refunded to him. My final decision For the reasons set out above my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint and I make no award. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Ayshea Khan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --