DRN-6285546

The complaint Mrs M, via her representative, complains that the investment advice she received from Skipton Building Society was unsuitable. She says she feels too exposed to risk and the term of the investment is too long-term given her age and circumstances. She also questions the adviser’s decision to proceed with a meeting given her vulnerability, and complains the charges were too high and doesn’t recall being told about them. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat everything again here. The following is a brief summary of the background to the complaint to provide some context. Where it is appropriate to do so, I will refer to specific evidence or expand on what follows in support of my findings, in the section below. In July 2024, Mrs M approached Skipton for savings and investment advice on some surplus cash she had on deposit following the recent sale of her house. She was an existing customer of Skipton and already held an investment ISA with it (valued at around £76,000) which she’d had for many years. In a suitability report of 10 July 2024, Skipton recommended Mrs M invest £75,000 in a General Investment Account (GIA.) It assessed Mrs M’s attitude to risk as ‘Level 5’ on a scale seemingly of Levels two to seven. And it recommended she invest on the same platform and investment fund as her existing ISA – a passive multi-asset investment fund – which it deemed matched Mrs M’s attitude to risk. It recorded that Mrs M was in a comfortable financial position and wanted to invest the money for the future benefit of her son and daughter giving it the chance to grow in different assets for diversification. The report also said Mrs M agreed to its optional ongoing ‘information only’ service at additional cost. Mrs M already had this service with her existing ISA. Mrs M accepted the recommendation, and the investment was duly made. In March 2025, Mrs M complained to Skipton via her daughter acting as her representative. She broadly raised the points I noted at the start. Skipton issued its final response in May 2025. In summary it said based on the information collected about Mrs M’s circumstances, experience and health at the time of the advice, it didn’t agree the advice was unsuitable. It also believed it was appropriate for the adviser to have proceeded with the meeting and their recommendations. It said it was satisfied it had done nothing wrong – all necessary precautions were taken, the risks were explained allowing Mrs M to make an informed decision, and there was nothing to suggest the adviser should have doubted Mrs M’s ability to understand things and make her own decision. Following a further exchange of correspondence, because Mrs M remained dissatisfied with Skipton’s response, she referred her complaint to us.

-- 1 of 7 --

I issued my provisional decision of 26 March 2026, in which I explained why I intended to not uphold the complaint. I also explained that, even if I thought differently, the evidence showed Mrs M hadn’t suffered a loss, so there was nothing to put right in any event. I’ve included the relevant extracts from my provisional decision here as it forms part of my final decision. Copy of Provisional decision What I’ve provisionally 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. And where the evidence is incomplete or inconclusive 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 a regulated firm, Skipton had many rules and principles that they needed to adhere to when providing advice to Mrs M. And these can be found in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) handbook under the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) and Principles for Businesses (PRIN) as they were at the time of the advice. Having considered all of this and the evidence in this case, I intend not to uphold this complaint. I’ll explain why and also explain why, in any event, Mrs M hasn’t lost out. Suitability of advice Mrs M was advised to invest £75,000, in a GIA invested in a multi-asset passive investment fund deemed to be in line with her agreed attitude to risk – what might typically be described as a broadly ‘Medium’ risk approach. Mrs M was 83 years old at the time of the advice. I accept that what immediately stands out here is Mrs M’s age. Investing money via stock market linked investments typically requires a medium to long-term timeframe – at least five years and ideally longer. But in my view, age, alone, is not a barrier to investing. And I can see that Skipton did not ignore Mrs M’s age – the notes section of the fact-find document completed as part of the advice paperwork records this was discussed with her, and that her timeframe for investing was potentially less than 10 years. And as the cases notes go on to explain, what’s important to also consider, is an investor’s objectives as well as their wider personal circumstances. So, what was Mrs M’s objective? It’s recorded that because Mrs M didn’t feel she would spend the money in question in her lifetime, she wanted to invest for her children’s benefit and to provide the potential for a larger sum of money for them to enjoy in the future. So, the money wasn’t intended to be invested for Mrs M’s own benefit. In which case, the long-term nature of the investment doesn’t appear unreasonable in this case. And ultimately, wanting to pass on wealth that Mrs M wasn’t intending on spending herself, and for that to be as large a sum as possible, in my view, can’t reasonably be deemed unreasonable. Nevertheless, I’ve looked at Mrs M’s wider circumstances to consider whether this objective was reasonable. And I think it was. It was recorded Mrs M was in good health, she was in a comfortable financial position with her income exceeding her expenditure, she didn’t intend to spend the money herself, and crucially here, Mrs M had significant cash deposits. She still

-- 2 of 7 --

held around £300,000 in cash after the investment was made. So, while she had around £150,000 invested in total with her ISA and the new GIA, she had twice this amount in cash- based savings. Which, given her circumstances appears to have more than enough to cover both her emergency fund (the recommended amount was £20,000) and to cover any future needs such as care costs for example. So, taking all of this into account, I think Mrs M’s objective was reasonable and that she could afford to commit this sum of money to a longer-term investment for her intended purpose. Turning next to Mrs M’s attitude to risk. Skipton carried out an assessment of Mrs M’s attitude to risk by asking her a series of questions about her knowledge, feelings, experience and understanding of investments and investment risk. The questions were clear and of the type I would typically expect to see in a questionnaire or tool like this. The result of the questionnaire was that Mrs M was deemed a risk level ‘4’1. But it’s recorded that following a discussion and reading of the risk descriptions, Mrs M preferred and saw herself as risk level ‘5’2. Mrs M’s representative has generally questioned the assessment of Mrs M’s attitude to risk and whether it was appropriate she take any risk with her money, as well as highlighting the apparent conflicting or contradictory answers she gave on the risk questionnaire – in particular that Mrs M answered, ‘Strongly Agree’ to the question, ‘I generally prefer bank deposits to riskier investments.’ It doesn’t surprise me that Mrs M answered this question the way she did – I think it broadly reflected her overall asset position at the time – she held most of her wealth in cash-based savings. Mrs M also answered, ‘I agree’ to the question, ‘I feel comfortable about investing in the stockmarket.’ And this likely reflected the fact that Mrs M had an existing investment ISA, which it seems she was comfortable with as she’d held it for many years. But ultimately, this is why a series of questions are asked in the questionnaire. No one answer should dominate. And the resulting output shouldn’t simply be the end of the matter. The answers and the suggested risk profile should be seen as a starting point and a tool to prompt further discussion and something to be explored in more detail. And I think it’s clear from what’s recorded in the advice paperwork that there was an in-depth discussion around the relevant risk descriptions and Mrs M’s feelings around risk. Mrs M’s answer about preferring bank deposits was specifically highlighted as being part of the discussion had. It can be debated whether Mrs M was an ‘experienced investor’ as Skipton deemed she was. But Mrs M did have prior investment experience and over a long period – this wasn’t her first venture into investing. During the time Mrs M held her investment, she would have 1 These investors have an attitude to risk in the middle 50% of the investing population and are neither very risk averse nor inclined actively to seek riskier investments. They often have some experience and understanding of investments. They can usually make investment decisions without too much hesitation or anxiety. They may find more comfort in bank accounts and lower risk investments than stocks, shares and investment funds, but understand that investment risk may be required to meet their investment goals. 2 These investors usually have some experience and understanding of investments. They tend to make investment decisions fairly quickly and are not generally anxious about the investment decisions they have made. They normally view risk as a source of opportunity rather than a threat and will understand how taking investment risk can help meet their investment goals. The potentially higher returns from higher investment risk will make investing in stocks, shares and investment funds more appealing than lower risk investments and bank deposits.

-- 3 of 7 --

experienced the ups and downs of investment markets. And Mrs M is recorded as saying as much as part of the discussion she had with the adviser. So, I think Mrs M understood the broad concept of investment risk. And her experience of risk over time has been at ‘Level 5’. So, it doesn’t surprise me that she felt comfortable and agreed to adopt this approach for this investment. As I said above, Mrs M had at least twice the amount in cash than she had invested in total. I also think she had capacity for loss – she didn’t intend to use the funds in question and any losses or falls in value of this investment wasn’t going to impact her day-to-day needs or indeed likely any future needs. I think adopting some investment risk with this portion of her money and her wanting to seek greater growth potential for part of her wealth, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. So, I don’t think Skipton did anything wrong here in recommending Mrs M adopt the agreed level of risk and invest her funds in line with it. Skipton recommended Mrs M invest in a passive multi-asset investment fund, which was the same fund her ISA was invested in. I can see Mrs M’s representative has implied this was a lazy choice by the adviser as it simply replicated the same fund Mrs M was already invested in, and that as a result she had everything in one fund. But the fund choice was a Skipton panel investment. In my view, as a multi-asset fund it represented a broad spread of investment offering exposure to different asset types and a broad geographical market spread and representation. It didn’t require rebalancing over time and because it was a passive fund, it’s annual cost was typically lower than an actively managed fund. And in my view, it was in line with the level of risk Mrs M indicated she was prepared to take. I’m also mindful that it was a fund Mrs M was familiar with and likely understood given she had been advised to switch to it following an advice meeting the year before. So, overall, I think the advice Skipton gave was suitable. It met Mrs M’s objective, which was reasonable, the assessment of her willingness to take investment risk for this money was considered and properly assessed and discussed, and the resulting recommended fund choice was in line with the agreed risk approach. I don’t think Skipton did anything wrong here. Mrs M has also complained about the charges – they were high and she doesn’t recall being told about them. Skipton charged an initial fee for the advice of £1,875. And there was an ongoing service fee of 0.57% a year for its information only ongoing service. These charges were clearly set out in the suitability report featuring in more than one section of the report. The fund annual management charge and platform fee was also made clear here. The ongoing service, which was clearly referred to as being optional, was something Mrs M already had with her existing ISA and appeared to be benefitting from. So, it wasn’t unreasonable of Skipton to recommend it for this investment. And as I’ve already said, the cost of the service was clearly disclosed. So, I’m satisfied Skipton did nothing wrong in the way it disclosed or explained the associated costs. Mrs M’s representative has referred to Mrs M being vulnerable at the time of the advice and questions the adviser’s decision to proceed with the meeting and the recommendation. But I’ve seen nothing to indicate Mrs M was in a vulnerable position at the time. The adviser documented that they offered Mrs M the opportunity to have someone with her at the meeting, which given the circumstances was the right thing to do. And it’s apparent from what’s documented, that Mrs M was happy to deal with matters and make her own decisions. So, in the circumstances I consider it was fair and reasonable for Skipton to proceed with the meeting and deliver its recommendation to Mrs M. I understand that Mrs M’s representative is concerned that Mrs M doesn’t now appear to understand what she invested in at the time. But I’ve seen nothing which indicates Mrs M

-- 4 of 7 --

was incapable of understanding what was being proposed and recommended at the time, or anything which shows or implies she was incapable of making her own investment decisions. I think the advice paperwork shows there was a reasonably detailed discussion about things and that the adviser explained things clearly. I’ve seen no evidence of Mrs M being unduly pressured, and I think she was put in a position to make an informed decision, which she did in full comprehension of what she was doing. I’m mindful that Skipton carried out a follow up phone call with Mrs M a few weeks after the advice to check her understanding of things and that she was happy with everything. While I’ve not been provided with a recording of the call, it does appear from what Skipton has said about this that Mrs M demonstrated a clear memory of the meeting and that she understood things. I think this is evidence to support my view that Mrs M was capable of making her own decisions at the time. So, in conclusion, I don’t think Skipton has done anything wrong here. I think in the specific circumstances of this case, the advice it gave to Mrs M was suitable and it met what, in my view, was a fair and reasonable objective for her to have at the time. This means, I don’t intend to uphold the complaint. Mrs M hasn’t lost out financially in any event While I’m satisfied with the conclusion I have reached in this case, there is an important matter that I want to draw to Mrs M’s attention – something that ultimately lies at the heart of the matter. In its response to the investigator’s findings, and in addition to arguing its case as to why it maintained the advice it gave was suitable, Skipton included the output of a calculation it had run in line with the investigator’s proposed methodology to put things right. I believe Mrs M has seen this, but I enclose a further copy with my decision. Importantly this shows that at the point Mrs M transferred her investment away from the recommended platform in August 2025 (the break in causation) the value of her investment was £81,145.18. But if Mrs M had instead invested the same amount of money in line with the average interest rate for fixed rate bonds over the relevant period (the benchmark the investigator said Mrs M’s investment should be compared with on the basis she would otherwise not have taken any investment risk), she would have had £78,714.17. Which is less than she actually had. This means that Mrs M was better off and by just over £2,400, as a result of the advice she received at the point she transferred away. This is relevant here because this demonstrates Mrs M has not suffered a loss as a result of the advice she received. Why is this important? It’s important because, even if I agreed with the investigator’s ultimate conclusion that the advice was unsuitable and I upheld the complaint, because Mrs M hasn’t suffered a financial loss, there is nothing that Skipton would need to do to put things right. No compensation is due in any event. I think it’s really important to make this point – not only to offer some comfort to Mrs M that she hasn’t incurred a loss, and has in fact gained as a result of the advice – but to be clear that, even if I thought differently about things (which for the avoidance of doubt I do not) there’s nothing for Skipton to do to put things right. Responses to my provisional decision

-- 5 of 7 --

Skipton didn’t reply to my provisional decision. Mrs M’s representative replied on her behalf broadly repeating the points previously made. They said: • They asked Skipton to meet with Mrs M as it was clear she didn’t understand what she’d invested in or what the costs were. • Mrs M didn’t feel the need to take anyone to the advice meeting because she believed Skipton would act in her best interests given she was a loyal customer. • Mrs M was horrified to learn about what she had invested in. • Anyone meeting Mrs M would clearly know she had no understanding of the concept of investment risk and timeframes. • They stand by what they said before – given the inconsistency in the answers Mrs M gave in the attitude to risk assessment, Skipton should have stopped the meeting and insisted someone else be present to support her. • It was lucky the advice hadn’t resulted in a loss, which was outside of Skipton’s control. • While they accepted no compensation was due, I should call out Skipton for its poor processes and that it should have better safeguards in place for vulnerable people. 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. Having done so, and because I’ve not been given anything new to consider, I’ve not changed my mind – I’ve decided to not uphold this complaint for the same reasons I gave in my provisional decision. As I said in my provisional decision, while Mrs M’s representative has referred to Mrs M’s vulnerability at the time of the advice, I’ve not seen anything to support the view that she was vulnerable at the time. And while age alone isn’t evidence of vulnerability, it is clear the adviser offered Mrs M the opportunity to have someone present at the meeting, which she declined. In the circumstances I wouldn’t expect Skipton to have questioned this or done anything more, so I think it was fair and reasonable for it to have continued with the meeting and provide its recommendation. Again, I accept Mrs M’s representative is concerned that Mrs M doesn’t now appear to understand what she invested in. But there is no evidence to support the view that Mrs M was incapable at the time of understanding what was recommended, or that she was incapable of making her own investment decisions. As I explained in my provisional decision, the advice paperwork supports there being a reasonably detailed discussion about what was being proposed and that the adviser explained things clearly. I’m still of the view that Mrs M was in a position to make an informed decision at the time. Mrs M’s representative has asked me to berate Skipton for its poor processes and that it should employ more safeguards for potentially vulnerable people. It is not my role to set out

-- 6 of 7 --

what procedures Skipton should adopt in its advice process or what safeguards it should employ. But as I’ve explained, I think Skipton acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Mrs M. My final decision For the reasons above, I’ve decided to not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2026. Paul Featherstone Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --