Computershare Investor Services · DRN-6313555

The complaint Ms M complains about Computershare Investor Services Plc. In summary, she says: • She had two Sharesave plans. After leaving her employment in December 2021, with "good leaver status", she wasn't properly informed about what she needed to do to exercise her share options. As a result, her share options lapsed in June 2022, which she says is unfair. • Following the lapse, Computershare retained her £8,000 in savings for a prolonged period, without paying her interest and without taking steps to return her money. To put things right, Ms M would like compensation for losses claimed. What happened Computershare didn’t uphold the complaint. In summary, it said that it acted in line with the terms and conditions of the plans throughout. It also said that Ms M was responsible for managing her own account and could’ve withdrawn her funds at any point. Unhappy with Computershare’s response, Ms M referred the complaint to our service. One of our investigators considered the complaint and thought it should be partly upheld. She found that Computershare hadn’t done enough to return Ms M’s funds. To put things right, she said it should pay her simple interest at 8% a year. Unhappy with the investigator’s view, Ms M asked for an ombudsman’s decision. Computershare also disagreed with the investigator’s view and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. It maintained that it had sent Ms M a notice and that it was Ms M’s responsibility to retrieve her money. As no agreement had been reached, the matter was referred to me for review. On 14 April 2026, I issued my provisional decision, a copy of which is stated below and forms part of my final decision. In the decision I said: “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, subject to any further submissions, provisionally I'm not going to uphold this complaint. On the face of the evidence, and on balance, despite what Ms M says, I’m satisfied that Computershare sent her the leavers letter dated 9 February 2022 – notifying her that her employment status had changed, that she may need to take action and, that she should log into EquatePlus to complete any tasks on her Overview page, including any tasks with a deadline. Therefore, Computershare took reasonable steps to put her on notice.

-- 1 of 6 --

Before explaining why, I’d like to thank the parties for their patience while this matter awaited review by an ombudsman, given the current demand for our service. I also want to acknowledge the strength of feeling Ms M has about this matter. She’s provided detailed submissions, which I’ve read and considered carefully. I hope she won’t take the fact that my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues, as a discourtesy. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised. My role is to consider the evidence presented by Ms M and Computershare, and to decide whether Computershare treated her fairly and reasonably and, if not, whether that caused her financial loss or other impact. I’ve also taken account of relevant law and regulations, and what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The plan rules make clear that a participant who leaves employment as a "good leaver" has six months from their leaving date to exercise their share options. If they don't act within that period, the options lapse. This is the standard position under Save As You Earn (SAYE) schemes, and this reflects the terms Ms M would’ve agreed to when she started investing. She would’ve acknowledged that she understood the general nature of these schemes. On the face of evidence, I’m satisfied that the rules clearly allowed for a lapse. However, the key question is whether Computershare took reasonable steps to notify Ms M of what she needed to do and by when, so that she had a fair opportunity to exercise her share options. On the face of the available evidence, and on balance, I'm satisfied that it did. As mentioned above, I note Computershare generated a leaver letter dated 9 February 2022, which it says was posted to Ms M's registered address on 10 February 2022. The letter notified Ms M that her employment status had changed, that she may need to act, and that she should log into EquatePlus to complete any tasks on her Overview page, including any tasks with a deadline. A copy of the letter was also made available in her online account. Ms M says she didn't receive the letter. Whilst I acknowledge what she says, and don’t know for sure whether she received the letter, this doesn't however mean the letter wasn't sent. Computershare has produced evidence that the letter was generated and dispatched. Our general position is that it’s reasonable to assume post sent was delivered, as most of the post is delivered. In any case, there’s no evidence before me of a postal failure, and I’ve no basis to conclude that the process of sending the letter wasn’t working. The fact that Ms M doesn't recall receiving it isn’t, in and of itself, sufficient to undermine or contradict this evidence. In any case, in assessing whether Computershare acted fairly the test is whether the letter was sent, not whether Ms M received it. Ms M raises an issue about apparent inconsistency. She says that the notice letter is dated 9 February 2022, yet the portal appears to record the date as 31 December 2021. She says a document can’t pre-date itself and argues that this raises a fundamental question about when it was uploaded and whether it was accessible to her during the relevant period. I've considered this point carefully. Having done so, I don't think this undermines the core evidence. Generating and posting a letter and uploading a copy to the portal are separate processes, and the dates associated with each may not necessarily match. The date appears to reflect how the document was categorised or labelled in the system and not when the underlying letter was created or sent. I've seen nothing to suggest the portal date reflects the actual date of sending, and the potential inconsistency alone is not enough for me to

-- 2 of 6 --

safely conclude that no letter was generated or sent. Ms M's argument would require me to infer, from a labelling anomaly, that the postal process failed or that the document was deliberately backdated by Computershare, but the evidence doesn’t support this inference. On the face of the evidence, and on balance, this isn’t a conclusion that I can safely reach. Ms M also argues that Computershare had her email address from 17 February 2022, more than four months before the lapse deadline, and that given the time-critical and irreversible nature of the position, reliance on a single postal communication fell short of what she could expect as a fair and reasonable effort on the part of the business. Having carefully considered this argument, I’m not persuaded by it. First and foremost, I don't think it would be fair or reasonable to require Computershare to issue a further notification simply because a contact preference was later updated, particularly when the initial notification had already been sent using the method registered at the time. Based on what Computershare says, I understand that the scheme documentation also made reasonably clear that participants were responsible for keeping their contact details up to date. If Ms M had wanted to receive communications by email, she ought reasonably to have registered that preference with Computershare, before any notification was generated. But she didn't, therefore I can't hold Computershare responsible for the consequences of that. Secondly, I’m mindful that the SAYE was a self-managed scheme. The plan documentation made clear that participants were responsible for monitoring their accounts, keeping their details current, and taking action within the relevant deadlines. Ms M has suggested that her prior experience of SAYE schemes led her to believe she didn't need to act within six months. I understand why that prior experience might have shaped her expectations, but be that as it may, this isn’t something I can hold Computershare responsible for. The terms applicable to these plans were clear, and participants are expected to familiarise themselves with the rules of the specific scheme they’re with. Finally, Ms M points to the portal's continued reference to "applicable interest", even after the lapse, which she says suggests that this is inconsistent with Computershare treating the options as extinguished. I'll address the post-lapse position below. But in terms of its effect on the lapse itself, I don't think the portal message changes anything. The lapse was applied in accordance with the plan rules, and the evidence supports the conclusion that Ms M was notified in the manner required. For all these reasons, I don't think it would be fair or reasonable to ask Computershare to reinstate the options or to compensate Ms M for the financial loss she says she has suffered as a result of the lapse. The investigator took the view that Computershare had failed to take adequate steps to return Ms M's savings after the lapse, and that this failure warranted compensation in the form of interest for Ms M not having access to her money. Having carefully re-considered this aspect of the complaint, I've reached a different conclusion. I understand EquatePlus is a self-service platform and there was no obligation to proactively pay Ms M, in the circumstances. I also note that the funds remained available and accessible to her at any time. So, there was nothing stopping her from logging in and withdrawing her money.

-- 3 of 6 --

I also note that when she contacted Computershare in October 2023, she was given instructions on how to complete the withdrawal, and she was subsequently able to do so, without additional intervention. So, I’m satisfied that the process worked as it was designed to. I've considered Ms M's point about the portal's reference to "applicable interest" and whether this could’ve led her to believe her account was operating normally, thereby reducing the urgency she might otherwise have felt to withdraw. I note she says that she found this confusing, however, I don't think it follows that Computershare is now responsible for the delay. As I mentioned above, the platform was accessible, it was her money, and withdrawal was straightforward. In other words, the argument Ms M puts forward, didn’t prevent her from withdrawing her funds, and I don't think it created an obligation on Computershare to intervene proactively either. I've also considered Ms M's submission that Computershare's own policy required it to pay compound interest on funds held. I've looked at the evidence regarding this point. The plan rules don’t, in my view, impose an obligation on Computershare to pay compound interest on savings retained following the lapse of options. The reference to "applicable interest" in the portal appears to relate to the savings contract during its active period, rather than creating a separate and freestanding entitlement to interest following a lapse. I'm not satisfied that Computershare made such a commitment to pay compound, or any interest, in these circumstances so, it’s not a point I can agree with. On balance, I'm not persuaded that Computershare acted unfairly in its post-lapse handling of Ms M's funds. On balance, I’m satisfied that the responsibility for withdrawing the savings was with her. The platform was accessible, the funds were available, and she was given clear instructions when she sought them. I appreciate that Ms M will disagree with my provisional decision to reject this complaint. I don't doubt the strength of her feelings. However, on the face of the available evidence, and on balance, my provisional conclusion is that I can’t uphold this complaint and give her what she wants.” I gave the parties an opportunity to respond to my provisional decision and provide any further submissions they wished me to consider before issuing my final decision, if appropriate to do so. Computershare didn’t respond to my provisional decision and provided no further information. Ms M responded but didn’t accept my provisional decision. In summary she said: • She appreciated that her points had been considered, but I had concluded in favour of Computershare, even where the evidence was unclear. • Once her options had lapsed, it wasn’t in her interests for Computershare to retain her money. Steps should’ve been taken by Computershare to return her money. • I ought to reconsider awarding interest, even if the lapse point is upheld.

-- 4 of 6 --

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, including Ms M’s latest submissions in response to my provisional decision, my decision not to uphold this complaint remains the same, primarily for the same reasons as set out in my provisional decision. I don’t consider that any new material points have been raised that persuade me to change my decision. The key points remain the same and were addressed in my provisional decision. In other words, I’m satisfied I’ve considered all the relevant points. I note Ms M doesn’t challenge my decision regarding the lapse, which I still think is in line with the terms and conditions of the plans. Instead, she’s questioned my conclusion regarding the post-lapse handling of her money. She’d like me to adopt the investigator’s earlier view which recommended that interest should be paid on her money for the period that it remained with Computershare. Whilst I understand why she’d like me to reconsider my provisional decision, her submissions don’t persuade me to change my mind. The investigator’s view isn’t binding on me and is the first stage of a two-stage process. If one or more parties disagree with their view, the complaint is referred to me for a decision. I must independently decide, on a balance of probabilities, whether the business is at fault and how the complaint should be settled. I do that on the basis of what is fair and reasonable, having considered the evidence afresh. Having done that, for the reasons I’ve explained in my provisional decision, I reached a different conclusion to the investigator. While I understand Ms M’s position, I still think the responsibility for withdrawing the savings was on her. As I explained in my provisional decision, EquatePlus is a self-service platform, and the funds were available and accessible to her. She was able to log in and access her money at any time. I also note that when she contacted Computershare in October 2023, to seek assistance she was given clear instructions and was able to withdraw her money without difficulty. In the circumstances, and on balance, I’m still not persuaded that Computershare was required to take proactive steps to intervene and return the funds to Ms M, or that not doing so means that it’s now responsible for paying her compensation. Ms M hasn’t provided any persuasive arguments that lead me to depart from this conclusion. I note Ms M believes that interest should be awarded to her – to reflect that she didn’t have use of her money – but I don’t agree. I’m satisfied that she had access to her money and wasn’t deprived of it in a way that would justify a payment of interest. So, whilst I understand what Ms M says, I still don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to require Computershare to pay interest on her money for the post-lapse period. I’m mindful of Ms M’s explanation that she didn’t do anything with her funds because she believed her position regarding the shares remained unresolved. But I don’t think this shifts the responsibility for the delay on to Computershare. As I’ve explained in my provisional decision, the options lapsed in accordance with the plan rules, and regardless of any uncertainty she may have had, the funds belonged to her and were available to withdraw at any point. I appreciate that Ms M will probably disagree with my final decision. I don’t doubt the strength of her feelings about this matter. But on the face of the evidence, and on balance,

-- 5 of 6 --

I’m not persuaded that Computershare acted unreasonably either in relation to the lapse of the options or in its handling of Ms M’s funds afterwards. In the circumstances, I can’t uphold this complaint and give her what she wants. My final decision For the reasons set out above, and in my provisional decision, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Dara Islam Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --