Quilter Financial Planning Solutions Limited · DRN-6318331

The complaint Mr S complains that Quilter Financial Planning Solutions Limited (Quilter) failed to provide adequate annual reviews of his pension. He says his investments suffered from underperformance as a result. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both sides, so I’ll keep my summary of events brief. In 2017 Quilter recommended a pension switch to Mr S, moving his pension to a new provider. It recommended that he invest his funds in the Cirilium Moderate fund. As part of the recommendation Mr S agreed to pay Quilter 1% of the fund’s value each year for an ongoing advice service. Quilter say Mr S received an annual review in September 2018; June 2019; October 2020; October 2021; and October 2022 when a new servicing agreement was signed. It says a new adviser from Quilter took over servicing Mr S’s plan in 2023 and met with him in December 2023 when he made a recommendation to switch the investment fund Mr S held. Quilter say it prepared for an annual review in 2024, but Mr S decided to cancel the ongoing service before the meeting took place. In October 2025 Mr S complained to Quilter. In summary he said the ongoing service he’d received had been poor value for money. The calls he’d received to conduct the reviews had been brief which didn’t allow for a proper, detailed review of his objectives, fund performance or risk profile. Mr S asked for a refund of his ongoing advice charges (OACs) and compensation for the financial loss caused by poor fund performance. Quilter responded to Mr S’s complaint in October 2025. In its response it said annual reviews had been provided to Mr S each year and the level of service provided by its advisers met the levels of service detailed in its ‘Terms of business’ and ‘Guide to our services’ documents. Quilter acknowledged Mr S was disappointed with the performance of his funds but explained it deemed the investment was appropriate at the time of the investment recommendation. It said performance of the pension is dictated by the underlying associated funds and market conditions which are beyond the control of Quilter or its advisers. It explained its view on ‘time in the markets’ being more important than ‘timing the markets’ for investments intended to provide returns over the medium to long term. Mr S wasn’t satisfied with Quilter’s response and so he brought his complaint to our Service. It was looked into by one of our investigators who was unable to resolve things informally. So, the complaint has been passed to me for a decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

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. When considering what’s fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant laws and regulations as well as the regulator's rules, guidance and standards. Where appropriate I also consider what was good industry practice at the time of the advice. In February 2025 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) set out its findings from a recent review of whether financial advisers were delivering the ongoing advice service that consumers had paid for. Of relevance to this complaint, it said firms can charge consumers for ongoing services that include personal recommendations and related services or related services alone. It said what constitutes ongoing advice can be broad. The services offered by firms vary and are set out in individual client contracts. The findings also went on to say that where a firm had been ready, willing and able to provide suitability reviews, but a client had consciously declined the service or not engaged in the service in any given year, it considered it less likely that redress would be paid. In the suitability letter Quilter sent Mr S in August 2017 regarding the ongoing service it said: We strongly recommend that your retirement plans are reviewed on a regular basis. Typically this review will comprise of the following services: • An assessment and review of investment performance and markets relative to your specific investments as well as a wider economic review • A review and appraisal of prevailing interest rates and annuity rate movements as may be applicable to your circumstances at your time • A summary of the impact of any legislative or statutory changes that might impact on your retirement strategy, for example, changes in taxation law or State pension benefits • An update and appraisal of your financial and personal situation, needs, circumstances and objectives • A review of your attitude to risk and volatility linked specifically to the performance of your pension funds, to ensure continued appropriateness. This will help to ensure that your risk tolerance continues to match the investment fund(s) being used. We have agreed that you would like your retirement plans to be reviewed on a yearly basis. Quilter have also provided its ‘Terms of business’ document from the time in 2017 which had a similar description of what an annual review would comprise of. Mr S doesn’t seem to dispute that he had contact from Quilter in each of the years in question and the evidence adds weight to this. I say that because Quilter have provided review letters from September 2018, October 2020, October 2021, October 2022 and December 2023. It also provided a suitability letter from June 2019 recommending Mr S make regular contributions into his pension plan. The review letters and suitability report all recorded that Mr S’s circumstances and objectives

-- 2 of 4 --

were reviewed but hadn’t changed since the previous year. They recorded the current value of Mr S’s plan and the fund it was invested in. All of the letters recorded that Quilter had reviewed the pension and believed it remained suitable for Mr S. I’m satisfied from the evidence provided by Quilter and Mr S’s testimony that Mr S’s pension was reviewed each year that it was required to. But the crux of Mr S’s complaint is the depth and quality of those reviews which he feels weren’t adequate and offered poor value for money. So, I’ve thought about that. As the FCA noted in 2025, what constitutes a review can be quite broad. The regulator hasn’t provided prescriptive rules on what constitutes and annual review or how long or in depth it must be. Instead, firms are expected to ensure their acting in the interests of their clients; treating them fairly; and ensuring they’re delivering good outcomes. The length and depth of annual reviews can vary based on legitimate factors like the complexity of the product or the specific agreement a client holds with a firm. Mr S’s agreement didn’t set out how long a review should take or exactly what needed to be discussed and at what level. So, it hadn’t agreed with him that the reviews would last a certain length of time or go into a particular amount of detail. Mr S didn’t hold a complex pension product. It was a personal pension invested in a single managed fund. The fund was described as a multi-asset, multi-manager fund designed so that Mr S only needed to invest in this single fund. That meant that unless Quilter were to recommend a change of the fund itself, it was unlikely to need to make recommendations around fund switches or rebalancing of the portfolio. Therefore, as long as the one fund remained suitable, it’s reasonable to think Quilter’s review would take less time than if it was reviewing a more complex product with several different investments. Mr S also explained that he’d had little changes to his circumstances over the years in question, other than growing older and closer to retirement. So, it isn’t surprising that, when ensuring its knowledge of Mr S’s circumstances and objectives were up-to-date, Quilter were able to establish things remained suitable during a relatively short meeting. I’m satisfied that Quilter’s meetings and follow up communications met its agreement with Mr S. I can’t reasonably say that Quilter had to go into more depth or hold longer, more detailed meetings with Mr S to fulfil its agreement with him. Mr S has commented on the value the service provided him. I acknowledge Mr S’s opinion on this, but value is a subjective thing. What I have focussed on is whether Quilter, more likely than not, provided the service that it promised. Whether Mr S found that service good value over time was a matter for Mr S, who wasn’t tied into the ongoing service and had the option of cancelling it if he didn’t see its value. Which he did in 2024. Mr S has also said that Quilter didn’t always call at a convenient time, and he’d sometimes felt uncomfortable having to talk to Quilter over the phone at his workplace. But I’ve seen no evidence Mr S raised these concerns with Quilter at the time of the meetings to give it the chance to reschedule the meeting for a more convenient time for Mr S. So, I don’t think it did anything wrong by contacting Mr S in the way it did or at the times it did. Mr S didn’t raise any concerns about the timings of the meetings when they took place and he signed a refreshed client agreement in 2022, which suggests he wasn’t unhappy with the service at that time. And he could have asked the adviser to call back at a more convenient time if he was unable to engage in the process.

-- 3 of 4 --

Mr S also questioned why Quilter had left him in what he thought was an underperforming fund. Quilter explained to Mr S in its response letter that he was invested in a fund that was deemed appropriate at the time of the investment advice. The fund had a mix of globally diversified assets but market volatility over the period affected the performance of the fund. I’m satisfied that the fund Mr S was invested in met his attitude to investment risk and was suitable for him. Mr S’s circumstances and attitude to risk didn’t significantly change so the fund he was invested in remained appropriate for him. Quilter have explained its view of the fund being a medium to long term investment and riding out the volatilities in the market in the short term. And I think that’s a reasonable approach to have taken. When Quilter then met with Mr S in December 2023 it says it recommended switching the fund. In its report it included a graph showing how Mr S’s funds had remained broadly in line with its benchmark until around December 2021 when it started to deviate. So, when Quilter thought the potential for underperformance was more than merely a short-term dip, it recommended a change. I think that’s also a reasonable approach. Mr S says he didn’t follow the recommendation to switch funds as he was already starting to consider ending his relationship with Quilter – which he did later the following year. I’m satisfied it was reasonable for Quilter to suggest Mr S’s investments remained suitable in the short term as they matched his attitude to investment risk, but by 2023 when it saw the funds weren’t recovering, it recommended a change. I think that too was suitable. And I can’t hold Quilter responsible for Mr S’s choice not to act on the recommendation. Quilter have provided a report it produced in October 2024 in preparation for Mr S’s review. But Mr S contacted his provider and asked for Quilter to be removed as his servicing agent before the meeting. Quilter have demonstrated by producing a report in anticipation of the meeting that it was ready, willing and able to perform Mr S’s review for that year but for Mr S disengaging from its service. So, I think it’s reasonable for Quilter to have retained the fee for its services that year. Overall, I’m satisfied that Quilter delivered its ongoing service to Mr S in line with its agreement with him. And its approach regarding the fund Mr S was invested in was reasonable. My final decision My final decision is, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Timothy Wilkes Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --