Radcliffe & Co (Life & Pensions) Limited · DRN-6239492

The complaint Mrs F complains that Radcliffe & Co (Life & Pensions) Limited have charged her an extra 0.55% on her investments, which has never been made clear to her. She also says despite paying for ongoing advice, she hasn’t always received the service she paid for and feels neither her circumstances nor attitude to risk were reviewed, which has impacted investment performance. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat everything again here. The following is a summary of the background leading up to the complaint to provide some context. In 2018, Mrs F was introduced to a pension transfer specialist firm by Radcliffe & Co because she wanted to review the ongoing suitability of a Defined Benefit (DB) pension. The resulting advice from that firm led to Mrs F transferring her pension to a new personal pension arrangement and investing her pension funds in a Discretionary Fund Manager (DFM) portfolio service. To some extent it appears Radcliffe & Co were involved in the investment recommendation. Mrs F’s attitude to risk was deemed ‘highest medium’ – a score of 7 out of 10. But the investment recommendation was for a ‘low to medium’ risk portfolio because it was noted that, while Mrs F’s calculated profile would allow her to take a higher level of risk than the recommended portfolio, she wanted to take a lower level of risk and given her objectives, she saw no need reason to take a higher degree of risk. At the same time, Mrs F signed a service agreement with Radcliffe & Co to provide her with an ongoing service, at an additional annual cost, which included an annual review meeting. In 2021, Mrs F received further advice from Radcliffe & Co to set up two Junior ISAs (JISA). She also signed a services and payment agreement at this time to agree / continue with ongoing advice at an additional cost. Radcliffe & Co has provided evidence, which it says supports reviews being carried out in 2019, 2021 and 2022. There is no evidence that reviews happened in 2020 or 2023. I’ll expand on this later on. In April 2024, Mrs F complained to Radcliffe & Co raising three main points: she hadn’t had any review or heard from her adviser since November 2022 despite paying a significant charge, she felt she hadn’t received any real advice over the last few years and that her circumstances and attitude to risk hadn’t been reviewed or considered, and she considered the charges hadn’t been made clear – she was paying an extra 0.55% a year which wasn’t transparent in her dealings with Radcliffe & Co.

-- 1 of 9 --

Radcliffe & Co says Mrs F’s ongoing fees were switched off in April 2024, following her complaint. In response to the complaint, Radcliffe & Co accepted no annual review was carried out in 2023. It initially offered to provide Mrs F with a review and waive ongoing fees for 12 months. Mrs F rejected the offer. It then provided a further response and offer. It said it was satisfied the costs and charges relating to Mrs F’s investments were fully disclosed and it explained the difference between the fee it charged for its ongoing advice and the total costs detailed, which included variable elements such as transaction and fund costs. It said there were no new costs or mistaken charges. It explained that while Mrs F’s attitude to risk was recorded as being above average at the outset, the decision was that she didn’t need to take that level of risk to achieve her objectives. And it said there was no reason it would have recommended a change to the level of risk taken had the 2023 annual review taken place. To address the missed review, it offered to refund 30% of the ongoing advice charge over the relevant period plus £200 to cover lost interest and for any inconvenience caused. Dissatisfied with the response, Mrs F referred her complaint to us. I issued my provisional decision of 5 March 2026, in which I set out my reasons why I intended to uphold it, in part. I’ve included a copy of my provisional decision here as it forms part of my final decision. Copy of my provisional decision What I’ve provisionally 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. I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulatory rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice, and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. And where the evidence is incomplete or inconclusive I’ve reached my decision based on the balance of probabilities – in other words, on what I think is more likely than not to have happened, given the available evidence and wider circumstances. Having done so, I intend to uphold this complaint, in part. I’ll explain why. Cost disclosure Firstly, I’m satisfied Radcliffe & Co hasn’t done anything wrong in relation to cost disclosure. And I think its explanation in its email to Mrs F of 14 August 2024, set out the position clearly. I think Mrs F appears to have misunderstood the position. As I said above, the advice Mrs F received to transfer her workplace pension to a personal pension arrangement was given by another business. Radcliffe & Co appear to have been involved to some extent in providing the investment advice, although I’ve not been provided with any advice paperwork it produced at this time. But ultimately the other firm recommended the transfer and investment strategy. Radcliffe & Co has provided a copy of the suitability report Mrs F was given by the advising firm at this time. And I can see this set out the two main charges that applied – the annual management charge the DFM provider charged for managing the investment on Mrs F’s behalf and the ongoing advice fee deducted from the investment payable to Radcliffe & Co for providing the

-- 2 of 9 --

ongoing advice service. This is the fee relevant to Radcliffe & Co and the only one, as it has explained, it received. The advice paperwork referred to a Key Features document Mrs F was provided with, which would also have contained the relevant cost information. Mrs F has also provided a letter from the DFM provider from around the time of the advice, which also set this out. Furthermore, Mrs F signed Radcliffe & Co’s service or fee agreement in 2018 (and again in 2021) which also made the ongoing advice service cost clear. I’m satisfied Mrs F has not been charged extra as she believes was the case, and I’ve seen no evidence to support any cost disclosure failings by Radcliffe & Co. Ongoing advice fees and annual reviews Mrs F was paying Radcliffe & Co for an ongoing advice service at an additional cost. Mrs F said her complaint was mainly about what happened after 2022. But like the investigator, and using our inquisitorial remit, I’ve looked at what took place over the entire relevant period. The first review was due in 2019. While the evidence is not as comprehensive in this case to show what took place at this time, it is apparent that a review meeting took place. Radcliffe & Co has provided a fact-find document, which documented that the adviser met with Mrs F at her home in June 2019, for a review meeting. The fact-find was updated, including updated asset and liability values, and the brief notes indicate that a discussion about her circumstances and the investment performance took place. These are the two key things I would expect to be discussed and reviewed as part of an annual review. So, for the 2019 review, based on what I have seen and being mindful that the meeting took place face-to-face at Mrs F’s home and was therefore unlikely to have been cursory, I think there’s enough here to show Mrs F broadly received the service she paid for and no refund is due here. Radcliffe & Co says no review took place in 2020 and its pointed to Covid restrictions. On the one hand, I accept that 2020 was a difficult year for businesses to operate normally in light of the Covid pandemic. But I don’t think the prevailing conditions meant that it was reasonable for Radcliffe & Co to not carry out any kind of review of Mrs F’s investment. She was still paying for the service. While face to face meetings might not have been possible at this time, a review could still have been carried out using other channels, such as by phone or video conferencing for example. So, as it’s not disputed that a review didn’t take place, and there’s nothing to indicate that Radcliffe & Co invited Mrs F to a review meeting, but it was declined, I’m not persuaded it is fair that Radcliffe & Co charged Mrs F for ongoing advice for this period. As such I think it is fair that Mrs F receives a refund of the ongoing charges she has paid for this missed review because she did not get the service she paid for. I’m satisfied reviews were then carried out in August 2021 and November 2022. Radcliffe & Co has provided copies of ‘Investment Progress Review’ documents or reports. And these contain the type of information and detail to demonstrate a review of Mrs F’s circumstances, attitude to risk and continuing suitability were carried out. The reports show investment performance since the previous review, they note there were no significant changes to Mrs F’s circumstances, and they contain statements to confirm that Mrs F’s objectives, risk and performance remained on track. A portfolio summary showing

-- 3 of 9 --

the investment composition, a more granular review of performance, and a summary of charges, was also included here. So, I’m satisfied reviews were carried out as agreed for 2021 and 2022, and that Mrs F got the service she paid for. No refund is due here. Turning to the 2023 review. Based on the fact the review in 2022 was carried out in November, the next one was due on or around November 2023. Radcliffe & Co accepts that Mrs F did not receive a review meeting in November 2023 as she should have expected. And in its response to her complaint, it agreed to refund a proportion of the ongoing advice fees to account for this. However, Radcliffe & Co told us that the adviser sent email requests or invitations to Mrs F to hold a review meeting on several occasions towards the end of 2023 and in early 2024. But it says Mrs F didn’t engage with them. Whether it is fair for Radcliffe & Co to charge for a review does not depend solely on whether the review happened. I think it is fair and reasonable that I take into account any evidence which supports Radcliffe and Co offering the review to Mrs F to demonstrate that it was ready, willing and able to provide that review. While Radcliffe & Co hasn’t provided copies of any email or written review invitations to Mrs F towards the end of 2023 as it says was the case, it has provided a copy of an email the adviser sent to Mrs F in April 2024. The subject heading is ‘Review and charges’ and in the body of the email the adviser says: “I was away last week, but would be great to get together and review the funds, they are doing quite nicely at the moment.” They then set out the charges on the investment, which it appears was in response to a request from Mrs F. They went on to say: “Please let me know when you are available and I can produce a review pack which will document all this.” Radcliffe & Co says Mrs F did not respond to its request. But I’m satisfied Mrs F received the email. She provided a copy of the email when she submitted her complaint, albeit it was redacted in places, so it wasn’t clear, until now, when it was sent and received. Given the email was clear that Radcliffe & Co was offering Mrs F a review meeting, by choosing not to reply, it seems she consciously declined the invitation. Now while I accept this invitation is later than it ought to have been – the review was due towards the end of 2023 – and it might have been prompted by a question from Mrs F about what charges applied to her investments, it nevertheless, in my view, demonstrates that Radcliffe & Co was ready, willing and able to provide a review as it had done so for the previous two years. I’m also mindful here that Radcliffe & Co’s initial response to Mrs F’s complaint was to offer to carry out a review straightaway and waive the next 12 months’ fees, which Mrs F declined. So, it seems to me that Mrs F consciously chose not to engage with the review service at this time. And given the invitation was made only a few months later than it ought to have been, I’m not currently persuaded Mrs F would have acted any differently had she been invited to a review sooner. So, taking all of this into account, I intend to conclude that it is fair and reasonable for Radcliffe & Co to have continued charging the ongoing fee after 2022, so covering the 2023 review period, up until the service was switched off in April 2024 – particularly as it was a service Mr F appears to have valued and used in previous years, and because she hadn’t previously declined a review. This means I currently think Mrs F should receive a refund of the ongoing fees she paid for the missed review in 2020.

-- 4 of 9 --

In addition, Mrs F has provided evidence, which appears to show that ongoing advice fees were still being paid to Radcliffe & Co on the two JISAs beyond April 2024, despite it confirming the service was switched off. The evidence says the adviser charge was only set to 0% on these accounts on 3 October 2025. If, as it appears, this is the case, then Radcliffe & Co should also refund to Mrs F any ongoing fees she’s paid beyond April 2024 in error. I understand that Radcliffe & Co believes that only a portion of the ongoing fees represents the actual physical review meeting and that the ongoing service comprised other things, including administration, newsletters, the running of its investment committee as well as providing events Mrs F was invited to attend, hence why its offered a 30% refund. But while I have thought carefully about this, I’m not persuaded that a partial refund of the ongoing fees Mrs F paid for the 2020 missed review is a fair compensation in this particular case. I think from Mrs F’s perspective, the review meeting was the key or core component of the ongoing advice service. I think this would typically be the case for most investors and I don’t think Mrs F was any different. I think the review meetings provided the security and comfort of knowing that things were being reviewed, considered, and that any changes where necessary could be made to meet Mrs F’s ultimate objective. This is where I think the value of the ongoing service is. And I haven’t seen anything to show that Mrs F utilised the other things Radcliffe & Co said comprised the ongoing service over the 2020 review period. She was also invested in a DFM, so there was no need for any rebalancing of the portfolio to be carried out by Radcliffe & Co. So, taking all of this into account, I think it is fair that 100% of the ongoing fee for the relevant period should be refunded in this case. I’ve thought about whether it is fair to award and amount for any distress and inconvenience. But given what I have found about Mrs F seemingly actively choosing latterly not to engage with the review service, and that despite the 2020 review being missed, she hasn’t said or implied she suffered any distress or inconvenience earlier in her dealings with Radcliffe & Co, I’m not persuaded an award is appropriate here. Attitude to risk and circumstances not reviewed Mrs F has complained that her risk profile was not discussed or amended meaning that her portfolio stayed on a low risk profile when her risk appetite was in fact high. The investigator upheld this part of Mrs F’s complaint supporting what she said. But I think differently. At the time of the original pension transfer advice given by the different business in 2018, Mrs F’s attitude to risk was assessed as being ‘highest medium’. What I think could reasonably be described as her natural appetite to risk based on the questions asked as part of the assessment. But just because a risk assessment gives one result, this doesn’t mean this is the most suitable approach to take for the objective in hand. I wouldn’t expect this to mean the end of the conversation and that any recommendation should be based on the risk assessment alone. It shouldn’t be this rigid. It’s fair and reasonable that other factors, including a consumer’s broader financial circumstances and objectives, should be taken into account too. And I think this is what happened here. The suitability report provided from this original advice said: “Although your calculated risk profile would actually allow you to take a higher level of risk than the above portfolio, we discussed this and you confirmed that you would prefer to take lower risk. You feel that the above portfolio will be sufficient to meet your objectives and see no reason to invest in a

-- 5 of 9 --

higher risk portfolio.” And the evidence provided by Radcliffe & Co, in my view, supports Mrs F continuing with this lower level of risk throughout the period of the relationship, and that this was both agreed and understood. The updated fact-finds from the relevant years record Mrs F’s attitude to risk at level 5 or ‘Medium’ and the more comprehensive 2021 and 2022 annual review documents, clearly record that Mrs F was comfortable with the level of risk being taken and that her objective remained on track. So, I think the evidence shows that Mrs F’s circumstances and her attitude to risk were reviewed and discussed as part of the annual review meetings that took place. And given there were no material changes to Mrs F’s circumstances over the period in question, it was reasonable for the adopted strategy to continue – there was no need for Radcliffe & Co to recommend Mrs F take a higher level of risk with her investments. Mrs F appears to have suggested that, had the 2023 review meeting taken place and a reassessment of her attitude to risk been carried out, this would have resulted in a recommendation to increase her risk profile, or she would have suggested it was increased. And that as a result, her investment returns would have been greater. But on the basis of my earlier finding that Mrs F didn’t want to engage with an annual review around this time, she didn’t give Radcliffe & Co the opportunity to discuss this or whether there were any changes to her circumstances. So, Mrs F’s argument here falls away. Nevertheless, even if I thought differently and that Mrs F did want a review meeting, but it wasn’t offered (which for the avoidance of doubt I do not) I’m not persuaded there is compelling evidence that Mrs F’s investment approach would have been different. I think her argument around this point is made with the benefit of hindsight coinciding with the time investment market conditions started to improve following the difficult period between from 2020 to late 2022 / early 2023. Mrs F’s attitude to risk hadn’t changed previously. And while Mrs F has said her circumstances changed (including an increase to her salary and change to her work benefits, and she was in receipt of a small inheritance) I haven’t seen enough to persuade me there were material changes such that it would likely have prompted Radcliffe & Co to recommend a change in the investment strategy and/or risk approach. Overall, I’m satisfied Radcliffe & Co hasn’t done anything wrong here, so I do not uphold this part of Mrs F’s complaint. Conclusion In summary, my findings are as follows: • There were no cost and charges information disclosure failings on the part of Radcliffe & Co. • Ongoing advice fees should be refunded to account for the missed review in 2020 as well as any ongoing charges that continued to be deducted beyond April 2024, when they should have ceased. • The refund should be for the full ongoing fee over the relevant period – a partial refund is not fair and reasonable in this particular case. • Radcliffe & Co is entitled to charge the ongoing fee for 2023 because it has provided evidence to show it was ready, willing and able to provide a review, but that Mrs F consciously declined it. • The available evidence indicates Mrs F’s circumstances and attitude to risk were

-- 6 of 9 --

reviewed when review meetings took place, and that she was not invested outside of the agreed risk approach. The adopted approach was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. • I’m not persuaded Mrs F has lost out in terms of investment performance as a result of the missed review in 2023. And in any event, the evidence indicates that Mrs F did not take up Radcliffe & Co’s invitation to review things at this time, albeit the invitation was slightly later than it ought to have been. Responses to my provisional decision Radcliffe & Co said it had nothing further to add and was ready to settle the matter as indicated. Mrs F responded. She said she was satisfied with the proposal to refund the 2020 ongoing advice fees, but she was unhappy with the position regarding the 2023 fees – her expectation remains that both years’ fees should be returned because no substantive service was provided during both periods in question. She said the offer of a review in 2024 was only made following her complaint (her second complaint with the firm) and as such the relationship had effectively broken down. She believes the fees on her children’s JISAs has already been addressed by Radcliffe & Co and so this element has been concluded. Mrs F repeated the point she made previously about her personal circumstances, objectives, and risk profile not being reviewed when some of circumstances changed, and her concern that her portfolio continued to align with her objectives. 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, I’ve not been persuaded to change my mind. I remain of the view that a fair way to resolve this complaint is a refund of the associated ongoing advice fees for the missed review in 2020. As I said in my provisional decision, whether it is fair for Radcliffe & Co to charge for a review does not depend solely on whether the review happened. I think it is fair and reasonable that I take into account any evidence which supports Radcliffe and Co offering the review to Mrs F to demonstrate that it was ready, willing and able to provide that review. And the email the adviser sent to Mrs F inviting her to a review in April 2024, was sent before she made her formal complaint at the end of the month. So, in light of the evidence and in the particular circumstances of this case, I think Radcliffe & Co is entitled to charge the ongoing fee for 2023 because it has provided evidence to show it was ready, willing and able to provide a review, but that Mrs F consciously declined it. I understand Mrs F remains concerned that Radcliffe & Co did not review her circumstances, objectives and attitude to risk when some things in her situation changed. But I don’t have anything further to add on this point, and I refer back to what I explained in my provisional decision. Putting things right Fair compensation in this case is a refund of the ongoing fees Mrs F paid for the missed review in 2020. The principle I think Radcliffe & Co should follow here is that the preceding

-- 7 of 9 --

12 months of fees were the ones relevant to the missed review on the basis the fees pay for the review in advance. Radcliffe & Co should also provide for a return on those fees representing lost growth. I think if the fees had not been taken, they would have remained invested. So, Mrs F’s investments would have been higher by the value of those fees and any investment returns that those fees would have gone on to benefit from. So, Radcliffe & Co should do the following: • Refund the ongoing advice fees Mrs F paid for the missed review identified above, and any fees which continued to be paid in error beyond April 2024, plus a return on the fee amounts from the date the fees were paid to the date of my final decision. • The return on the fees should be calculated by using the actual return generated by the investment(s) they were taken from. If it isn’t possible to calculate the actual return generated (I’m conscious for example that Mrs F transferred away) then I think a fair and pragmatic alternative would be to use the return based on the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Returns Index. I think this is a suitable alternative because Mrs F wanted capital growth with some risk to her capital. The FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return index (prior to 1 March 2017, the FTSE WMA Stock Market Income total return index) is made up of a range of indices with different asset classes, mainly UK equities and government bonds. It’s a fair measure for someone who was prepared to take some risk to get a higher return. • The relevant compensation amount should be paid into Mrs F’s pension plan if possible. The payment should allow for the effect of charges and any available tax relief. The compensation shouldn’t be paid into the pension plan if it would conflict with any existing protection or allowance. • If a payment into the pension isn’t possible or has protection or allowance implications, it should be paid directly to Mrs F as a lump sum after making a notional reduction to allow for future income tax that would otherwise have been paid. If Mrs F has remaining tax-free cash entitlement, 25% of the loss would be tax-free and 75% would have been taxed according to their likely income tax rate in retirement – presumed to be 20%. So, making a notional reduction of 15% overall from the loss adequately reflects this. • Mrs F understand this matter has been resolved separately. But if any compensation is due in relation to the JISAs held in Mrs F’s name (if fees were charged beyond April 2024 when they should have ceased) it should be paid to her directly. The redress principle should follow that above. • Provide Mrs F with the details of the redress calculation(s) in a clear, simple format. If payment of compensation is not made within 28 days of Radcliffe & Co receiving Mrs F’s acceptance of my final decision, interest must be added to the compensation at the rate of 8% per year simple from the date of my final decision to the date of payment. Income tax may be payable on any interest paid. If Radcliffe & Co deducts income tax from the interest, it should tell Mrs F how much has been taken off. Radcliffe & Co should give Mrs F a tax deduction certificate in respect of interest if she asks for one, so she can reclaim the tax on interest from HMRC if appropriate.

-- 8 of 9 --

My final decision I’ve decided to uphold this complaint, in part, and I instruct Radcliffe & Co (Life & Pensions) Limited to put things right in line with the approach above. Paul Featherstone Ombudsman

-- 9 of 9 --