FTAdviser.com

Advertising

Robert Johnsey, adviser for Yorkshire-based IFA Pegasus Portfolio Planning LLP, said soon after his client deposited £400,000 in his Barclays current account.

He was contacted by Barclays Financial Planning who advised him to transfer the funds into an onshore investment bond, despite the client stating he did not want to take on any risk at all.

After Barclays rejected the complaint, the client took his concerns to the Fos, which has now made a provisional decision in favour of the consumer.

But Mr Johnsey said the ombudsman needed to go further in its examination of Barclays’ sales tactics.

His comments came after Paul Moore, former head of regulatory risk of HBoS, said the lender’s customers may have been switched from deposit accounts into corporate bonds without really understanding the risks.

Mr Johnsey said: “Barclays is free to carry on making errors.

“When such errors are made the FSA should be informed and should do something about it.”

Barclays said it was unable to comment on the case without having the customer’s details.

When asked if Barclays would be changing its advice procedure as a result of the ombudsman’s provisional ruling or if this case was representative of wider issues, Michael O’ Toole, retail public relations officer of Barclays, said: “It is inappropriate to discuss a provisional ruling by the ombudsman.”

Martyn James, spokesman for the Fos, confirmed that it was still investigating the complaint but could not give any further details.

However he said that the provisional decision would indicate the ombudsman “was minded” to make a decision that was critical of Barclays.

He said: “We cannot comment on the merits of the case. While we have not given a final decision it is near that stage.

“With a provisional decision we will give an indication as to where we might be going but it is by no means a final decision because both the consumer and the firm have the opportunity to come back to us and present other evidence if they feel there is something that has not been considered.”

When asked if the ombudsman could act if it felt there was a wider issue with the bank’s advisory procedures, Mr James said: “We have the wider implications process, which is ourselves, the Office of Fair Trading and the FSA.

“Under the wider implications process, all the people involved can raise potential issues if they believe that is happening but it all depends on what the cases are.

“With this we need to know what they are complaining about.

“While we do have the capacity to raise issues under the wider implications process often a lot of these cases turn on their individual merits so it would not necessarily follow that one decision meant there was an overall problem we wanted to address.”

Mr James said anyone who wished to raise a potential wider-implications issue should do so in writing, specify clearly the nature and extent of the issue, give reasons why the issue had wider implications and provide any supporting documentation.

The issue can be raised with the ombudsman service, FSA or Office of Fair Trading.

The FSA said it was unable to comment on individual firms or individual cases that the ombudsman may be investigating.

Robin Gordon-Walker, spokesman for the FSA, said: “If we receive a wider implications referral, we respond and also the FSA can and does take up issues concerning conduct to consumers from other sources apart from wider implications.”