FOS decisions / Investment Trust
Investment Trust
Financial Ombudsman Service final decisions, reproduced verbatim from the FOS published decisions register.
Decisions
8
Upheld
0
Not upheld
8
Avg redress
—
Not-upheld complaints (8)
Decision DRN-6265204
A timeshare supplier's breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations by marketing membership as an investment can render the associated credit relationship unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Not upheldMar 2026Decision DRN-6295150
An execution-only investment service provider is not required to proactively notify investors of upcoming AGMs or provide voting information, as this responsibility falls to the investor.
Not upheldRevolut Ltd
DRN-6227719Firms must apply FPS reimbursement rules fairly, offsetting received scam funds against reimbursable payments before deducting any applicable excess.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6294292
Banks must monitor accounts for fraud risk and intervene with additional checks or warnings in appropriate circumstances, but intervention is only fair redress if it would likely have prevented the scam.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6177709
A financial institution is not required to intervene or offer redress for unauthorized transfers unless the consumer can demonstrate they were the victim of a scam supported by sufficient evidence.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6231575
A representative acting on behalf of an estate is not an eligible complainant in their own right and the ombudsman can only consider losses suffered by the represented party, not the representative personally.
Not upheldRevolut Ltd
DRN-6279788A payment service provider's fraud prevention measures must be proportionate to the risks presented, balancing protection against authorised payment processing.
Not upheldRevolut Ltd
DRN-6111079A financial provider is not liable for investment scam losses if intervention would not have materially prevented the loss, despite failings in fraud detection procedures.
Not upheld