DRN-6199705

The complaint The complaint has been brought by Mrs R, Ms R and Mr R, in their capacity as Trustees of the R Will Trust. As Mrs R has said she’s the lead trustee and has taken the lead with the complaint, I’ll refer to Mrs R throughout. Mrs R is unhappy that Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited (EP) didn’t give sufficient prior notice of a shareholder rights issue, in relation to a company she held shares in through a General Investment Account (GIA). Mrs R said this resulted in a financial loss. What happened The Trustees held 1489 shares in a company I’ll call ‘NG’, in a GIA. NG announced a corporate action that would result in a rights issue where for every 24 shares held, shareholders would be entitled to purchase 7 further shares. Mrs R says she wasn’t made aware of this rights issue, until it was too late. Mrs R says had she been given enough time, she would have purchased some of the 434 shares she’d have been offered as a result of the rights issue. Mrs R believed the blame lay with the custodian. Mrs R submitted a complaint to EP. EP issued a final response letter on 21 November 2024 not upholding the complaint. It said NG announced the rights issue on 23 May 2024, and the custodian issued the rights exercise to it on 24 May 2024. It said its corporate action team informed Mrs R on 28 May 2024 which it believed was within a reasonable time. EP noted that Mrs R had said she was not offered a cashless option, but EP said it was not obliged to offer a cashless option. Mrs R remained unhappy and referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Mrs R also complained about EP’s failure to inform her about Annual General Meetings (AGM) which has been considered as a separate complaint. The Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. He wasn’t persuaded that EP had done anything wrong or that it was responsible for any losses. He said the rights issue was announced on 23 May 2024, the custodian issued the rights exercise to EP on 24 May 2024 and it was received in EP feeds on 27 May 2024. EP informed Mrs R of the rights issue directly on 28 May 2024 and gave her until 5pm on 4 June 2024 to take action. The Investigator considered that the custodian and EP had acted as quickly as possible. Mrs R didn’t accept the Investigator’s view, saying that the timeline of events was oversimplified and lacked detail. Mrs R also said the notification of the rights issue she received on 28 May 2024, didn’t give a summary of the exercise, didn’t include a proposal document and didn’t include details and links sent by other platforms to its clients. Mrs R also said the rights issue had Capital Gains Tax (CGT) reporting implications for the Trust.

-- 1 of 3 --

The Investigator responded to the points raised but ultimately wasn’t persuaded to change his opinion, so the complaint has been passed to me to make a decision. 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 want to reassure Mrs R that I’ve read everything she’s sent us in relation to this complaint, and I’ve thought about each point she’s made. I may not respond to, or address, each and every point. That’s not because I haven’t thought about it. It simply reflects the informal nature of our service. My findings focus on what I consider to be the key issues in this complaint. I’m aware Mrs R has other concerns currently with our Service and they’ll be considered and addressed separately, so I’ll not comment on them further here. I believe the main issue here is whether EP gave its clients sufficient notice of the rights issue in May 2024. Based on the evidence, I’ve noted that the announcement of the rights issue was made on Thursday 23 May 2024, and the custodian issued the rights exercise on Friday 24 May 2024. EP informed its clients on Tuesday 28 May 2024, following the bank holiday Monday. I’m not persuaded that the custodian or EP caused any unnecessary delays here. Mrs R has said that the notification from EP didn’t offer a cashless option to her as part of the rights issue. Based on the evidence provided, I note that the notification of the rights issue sent on 28 May 2024 provided two options. To exercise the option to purchase further shares as per the rights issue, or to lapse the right to purchase more shares, which was the default option if no action was taken. The notification also confirmed the deadline to choose an option was 5pm on 4 June 2024, which I’m not persuaded was unreasonable, and in any event, was outside of the control of EP. EP also confirmed that sale proceeds of any lapsed rights would be distributed to entitled holders. This was the outcome of the rights issue in respect of the Trust’s holding as neither available option was selected prior to the deadline. I’m not persuaded that EP were required to offer a cashless alternative and I don’t consider they acted unreasonably with their action here. I’m also not persuaded that the notification from EP, provided insufficient information for Mrs R to make an informed decision on how to proceed. I can understand why Mrs R would’ve liked more time to review the rights issue and the options available to her, however I’m not persuaded by the evidence, that the custodian or EP caused any unnecessary delays or acted unreasonably. I acknowledge that Mrs R was already in touch with EP about having not been notified about the rights issue on 27 May 2024, before she was formally provided with the option on 28 May 2024. And I note that in her email she informed EP that she would be away from her desk between 28 May 2024 and 2 June 2024. She asked that EP instead contact her via a different email address or contact Mr R or Ms R instead. It is regrettable that the agent looking into Mrs R’s concerns didn’t notify Mrs R that EP had since communicated with her about the rights issue via her usual email address. But I wouldn’t have expected EP to have changed the email address associated with the trust for a period of only several days. So, I don’t think it was unreasonable that the email sent on 28 May 2024 went to the usual email

-- 2 of 3 --

address. And I ultimately still think Mrs R would’ve seen the notification of the rights issue before the option expired. Overall, based on the evidence, I’m unable to uphold this complaint and will not be instructing EP to take any further action. My final decision My decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the Trustees of the R Will Trust to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026. Lee Williams Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --