SIPP  

Fos dismisses Openwork’s insistent client argument

“In Mr M’s case, I accept that he was interested in Harlequin before he met (the adviser). But a consumer’s interest in an investment does not necessarily mean they will press ahead in making that investment in the face of explicit advice about why it is unsuitable for them. 

“Mr M’s circumstances were very different to his daughter’s. I do not think it would be fair for me to assume that Mr M’s decisions on his investments would have followed whatever decisions Miss M made about hers.  

“Miss M was not herself a Harlequin agent (although I am aware that she did have some professional association with a Harlequin agent). 

Openwork was told to pay compensation in respect of Mr M’s initial £30,025 investment in Harlequin, past Sipp fees plus future Sipp fees for the next five years.

Mr M will also receive £300 for the trouble and upset caused.

emma.hughes@ft.com