Janus Henderson Fund Management UK Limited · DRN-6058577

The complaint Mr C, Mr C and Mr C complain about Janus Henderson Fund Management UK Limited (trading as Janus Henderson Investors “Janus”). They said Janus did not trace or contact them about investments of which they are joint account holders. They said Janus has caused them financial losses. Mr C, Mr C and Mr C have been represented by a claims management law firm throughout. What happened Mr C, Mr C and Mr C were joint holders with their late mother in relation to an investment account and an investment that was held with Janus. Mrs C passed away in 2002, leaving the three brothers as the joint account holders. For ease of reading this decision, I have referred to them throughout as ‘the complainants’. The complainants said Janus acted unfairly with the way it dealt with this investment and their dealings with it. In particular they said: • They weren’t traced or contacted for many years after correspondence sent by it was returned. • They weren’t provided with sufficient information about the history of the investment, including the original investment and any charges or deductions taken; and • The investment performed poorly and they said they might have taken steps to achieve a better outcome if they had been aware of the investment earlier. In response, Janus said it acted fairly. It said the account was marked as ‘gone away’ after correspondence was returned and that it didn’t hold any further contact information for the account holders. Janus said it provided all information it still holds about the investment. It said the movement of the investment in 2011/12 occurred as part of the integration of the business and involved transferring holdings into comparable products. The complainants were not happy with Janus’ response and referred their complaint to our service. An investigator looked into matters and thought their complaint should be upheld in part. She said Janus should pay 8% simple interest on the proceeds of the investment from January 2019 (when the investment was terminated) until settlement and pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. Both parties were unhappy with the investigator’s outcome and so this complaint has been passed to me, an ombudsman, 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.

-- 1 of 4 --

I have independently reviewed what the complainants have said and have arrived at the same outcome as the investigator, for broadly the same reasons. I have set out my own reasoning below. The crux of the complainants issues that are in dispute, broadly fall into three headings: • The availability of information about the investment and performance. • The tracing of the complainants • The loss of use of the proceeds once the investment was terminated. I looked into each one of these in more detail. Information about the investment and performance The complainants said Janus hadn’t provided enough information about the investment, including details of the original investment and any charges or deductions taken. I do acknowledge what they have said about this, and how frustrating this must have been for them. But Janus is not required to retain records indefinitely. It also isn’t unusual for firms to have limited information available where the investment dates back many years, such as the circumstances of their complaint. In particular, it isn’t unusual for records relating to those originating with a predecessor firm dating back many years to be limited. I’ve seen that Janus has provided what it said it did have and has shared the information it holds about the account. Whilst I agree it would have been better and helpful for the complainants if it had held further historical information, I’m not persuaded on this occasion that this means Janus has acted unfairly or unreasonably, for the reason I have given. So, I don’t uphold this part of the complaint. The complainants have also suggested that the investment performed poorly and that they might have taken steps to achieve a better outcome had they been aware of it earlier. I’ve considered the points they have made carefully. However, I haven’t seen any evidence that Janus acted unfairly or made any mistakes in how the investment was managed. I’m not persuaded that the investment’s performance, in itself demonstrates that Janus acted unfairly. Rather, that its performance was linked to how its underlying assets performed in the markets. I don’t think this in itself is enough for me to say Janus did anything wrong, purely due to the returns the complainants were receiving on the investment. That said I went on to look at their complaint about attempts made or lack of, to trace them prior to 2024. Tracing the complainants The account was marked as “gone away” after mail sent by Janus was returned. Janus said it didn’t have any alternative contact information for the account holders at that time. I appreciate the complainants said they could have been located earlier, and they suggested ways that Janus could have done so. But I’m not aware of any requirement that Janus ought to have taken more proactive steps to trace the complainants in these circumstances, up to January 2019 when it redeemed their investment due to the trust being terminated. The complainants said Janus should have attempted to trace them sooner and pointed to when the investment was switched in around 2011/12 when the Gartmore cash fund holding was moved into a Janus fund.

-- 2 of 4 --

I’ve considered this carefully. From what I’ve seen the switch occurred as part of Janus’ integration of the Gartmore business. Janus said the transition involved moving holdings into comparable products to ensure continuity of investment and avoid assets being left in obsolete structures. While the complainants said this switch should have required their involvement, I haven’t seen evidence that Janus needed individual authority of the account holder to carry out that transition. These types of corporate restructurings can take place with regulatory approval and without individual investor instructions. The complainants asked that Janus provide evidence of the regulatory approval for the change of funds and further details about the comparable investments used. I’ve considered what has happened here and in doing so, I’m not persuaded it would alter my findings on this complaint. The central issue is whether the switch created an obligation on Janus to trace the complainants at that time. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think it did. I’ve also seen that Janus’ processes relied on approved tracing tools from third-party providers rather than general internet searches. In the circumstances, I’m not persuaded it acted unfairly up to January 2019. That said, it is from this date that Janus moved the proceeds of the redemption of the fund, into a non-interest-bearing account. I have looked at what guidance was around at that time and the Investment Association had just issued guidance about tracing gone away accounts. I think it would have been fair and reasonable, once the investment was redeemed in January 2019 and the proceeds were placed into a non-interest-bearing account, for Janus to have taken steps to attempt to trace the complainants. It would have been good industry practice to do so from this point. If Janus had done so, I think the complainants would have made use of the funds. So, I have gone on to consider the loss of use of these proceeds. Loss of use of the proceeds I looked at what happened once the investment ended. The information I’ve seen shows the investment was terminated on 14 January 2019, at which point the proceeds of £44,241.30 were placed in a non-interest-bearing account. Because the complainants hadn’t been traced at that time, they weren’t aware the investment had ended or that the funds were available to them. As a result, the money remained in that account for a significant period. The complainants may have withdrawn the money, invested it elsewhere, or used it for other purposes. But I think it’s likely they would have taken some action if they’d known the investment had ended and the proceeds were available. I can’t say exactly what the complainants would have chosen to do with the funds had they known about them in 2019. They may have withdrawn the money, invested it elsewhere or used it for other purposes. However, I think it’s likely they would have taken steps to make use of the funds once the investment had ended and the proceeds were available. In the circumstances where someone has been deprived of the use of their money, our usual approach is to award 8% simple interest for the period they didn’t have access to those funds. I think that approach is fair here. So, I think Janus should pay the complainants 8% simple interest on £44,241.30 from 14 January 2019 until the date the complaint is settled. If the complainants have already

-- 3 of 4 --

received the proceeds, the interest calculation should run until the date the funds were paid to them. Distress and inconvenience I’ve also considered the impact the situation had on the complainants when they eventually became aware of the account. The evidence shows the complainants had to make several attempts to contact Janus and obtain information about the investment after receiving the tracing letter. Some of their calls and emails weren’t answered and they experienced difficulty obtaining confirmation about the account. Taking everything into account, I think it’s fair that Janus pays compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Janus has offered £300 and I think that amount is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Putting things right In conclusion Janus should: • Pay 8% simple interest on £44,241.30 from 14 January 2019 until the complaint is settled. If the complainants have already received the proceeds of the investment, the interest should instead be calculated up to the date the funds were paid to them. • Pay the complainants £300 for the distress and inconvenience it has caused. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Mr C, Mr C and Mr C’s complaint about Janus Henderson Fund Management UK Limited in part. Janus Henderson Fund Management UK Limited should put things right, as I have described above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C, Mr C and Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Mark Richardson Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --