Quilter Financial Services Limited · DRN-5975847

The complaint Mrs P complains about the service she has received from QUILTER FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED in relation to investments she holds with it. She has raised concerns about problems she has had with administering and accessing her accounts. Mrs P is represented by a family member in bringing her complaint. What happened Mrs P held approximately £50,000 in two accounts with Quilter – an ISA and a Collective Investment Bond. After experiencing problems dealing with Quilter over a few months, a complaint was raised on 27 March 2025. The complaint related to several issues including an inability to access the online account, correspondence not being correctly addressed, an unexplained change of name letter, a failure to update a new address and withdrawal forms not being sent despite a number of requests. As Quilter didn’t respond to the complaint within the expected timescale, it was referred to this service in May 2025. One of our investigators looked into the complaint. He didn’t think it should be upheld. He noted to resolve the issues Quilter needed to speak to Mrs P directly, and for her to confirm her preferred contact postal address, email address and whether she wishes to make a withdrawal. He was satisfied what Quilter is requesting to resolve this matter is reasonable. Mrs P’s representative responded on her behalf and asked for the complaint to be escalated for a decision. They expressed disappointment and also concern about Mrs P having to contact Quilter again despite the previous problems. Following this Mrs P did contact Quilter on 1 December 2025 as suggested in an attempt to progress the withdrawal, but the call handler wasn’t able to access the computer system and said a call back would be arranged. But no call back was completed. Throughout December 2025 there were further communication attempts between Mrs P and Quilter. Eventually, the account updates were made, the withdrawal forms were sent and returned, and the withdrawals were processed at the start of January 2026. Mrs P didn’t consider the matter as resolved and made a further request for compensation for the impact of Quilter’s handling of the situation. After further communication with this service Quilter accepted there were some shortcomings in the service it provided to Mrs P. It made an offer of compensation of £1,000 in recognition of the inconvenience and upset caused. This offer was put to Mrs P, but her representatives rejected it on her behalf as they believe the stress and duress caused, warrants a greater amount of compensation. They said they were looking for appropriate financial compensation and, in summary, reiterated the following issues with Quilter:

-- 1 of 3 --

• Continued failure to allow Mrs P access to her own funds, and a failure to respond to her over a significant period of time. • Emotional distress and anxiety, in particular, having the police sent out to Mrs P’s old address which caused untold embarrassment and upset • Due to her age, Mrs P was entitled to reasonable adjustments and enhanced support in line with Quilter’s obligations under the FCA Consumer Duty, in particular the duty of care to vulnerable customers. • By her not having access to her investments for almost 12 months, Mrs P has been unable to utilise the funds elsewhere, resulting in an opportunity cost relating to these monies. • Significant time and effort by Mrs P’s representatives attempting to resolve the issues. As no agreement could be reached the complaint has been passed to me to reach 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. Our rules allow us to receive evidence in confidence. We may treat evidence from financial businesses as confidential for a number of reasons – for example, if it contains information about other customers, security information or commercially sensitive information. It’s then for me to decide whether it’s fair to rely on evidence that only one party has seen. It’s not a one-sided rule; either party to a complaint can submit evidence in confidence if they wish to, and we’ll then decide if it’s fair to rely on it. Here, the information is sensitive and on balance I don’t believe it should be disclosed. But it’s also clearly material to the issue of whether Quilter has treated Mrs P fairly. So, I’m persuaded I should take it into account when deciding the outcome of the complaint. I’m very aware that I’ve summarised the events in this complaint in far less detail than the parties and I’ve done so using my own words. No discourtesy is intended by me in taking this approach. Instead, I’ve focused on what I think are the key issues here. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. But I have read all Mrs P’s submissions. I want to make it clear that I understand the situation has caused upset and distress to Mrs P. I’ve no doubt it has caused worry not having access to her investments for a considerable period of time. But Quilter has extensive legal and regulatory responsibilities it must meet when providing investment services to customers. They can broadly be summarised as a responsibility to protect persons from financial harm, and to prevent and detect financial crime. To comply with these responsibilities Quilter will sometimes take actions that limit accessibility to accounts, which is what happened here. I’ve considered the basis for Quilter’s actions. Having done so I find this was legitimate and in line with its legal and regulatory obligations. The terms and conditions of the account also make provision for this. So, I’m satisfied Quilter acted fairly when servicing the investments. I note Mrs P has now been able to access her investments and has given instructions to withdraw her funds. While I understand the majority of the funds have now been paid to her, I acknowledge there appears to be some residual funds that still need to be paid. If Mrs P has further problems, she should raise these separately with Quilter.

-- 2 of 3 --

But, having said that, I have identified that there were some errors made by Quilter during the period, which were of its own making – this includes: • Sending Mrs P correspondence in December 2024 saying her name had been changed when this wasn’t something she had requested. • Addressing her incorrectly during this period in correspondence without explanation. • There were also recent problems after our investigator’s assessment, where Mrs P called Quilter to resolve the matter, as suggested, but Quilter were still unable to carry out the security checks it required and progress the matter. She was told a call back would be arranged the next day, but this didn’t happen. I acknowledge Quilter made an offer to Mrs P to recognise the impact of the service provided. It has offered to pay her £1,000 in settlement of the complaint. I’ve considered this offer. I’m satisfied that it takes into account the severity of the impact on Mrs P of the errors identified. I note that Mrs P’s representatives have explained they have also suffered inconvenience due to Quilter’s handling of the situation, but I’m only able to award compensation to the eligible complainant, that being Mrs P, not her representatives. So, while I acknowledge they have also found the situation difficult, I am unable to consider further compensation here. I understand that Mrs P’s representatives don’t think this is sufficient compensation for everything that has happened. As I haven’t found Quilter’s actions were not wholly unfair. I’m not requiring it to compensate for Mrs P for all of the trouble and upset she may have experienced. I recognise how strongly Mrs P’s representatives feel about this complaint, so I realise they will be disappointed by my decision. But overall, I find the offer of £1,000 to be fair and reasonable and in line with what I would award in the circumstances. I therefore direct Quilter to pay this amount in resolution of the complaint. My final decision I uphold this complaint and direct QUILTER FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED to pay the compensation set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Daniel Little Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --