Towry GroupApr 28 2017

Towry fails to meet terms of service agreement

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Towry fails to meet terms of service agreement

Towry Limited has failed to meet the terms of the service agreement it had struck with a client.

A couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs C by the Financial Ombudsman Service, signed a review and monitoring service agreement with Ashcourt Rowan - which later became part of Towry - on 11 March 2015. 

Three service levels were offered – essential, foundation and comprehensive. 

Mr and Mrs C selected the latter, which was designed to “ensure you have enough information to be in full control of your finances and to alert you to issues where you may need to make decisions and take action.”

An annual review was part of this package via a face to face meeting plus an annual comprehensive asset summary statement, annual investment valuation report and an annual review report. 

A once a year review and recommendation for re-balancing the investment portfolio was also included. 

The service was aimed at those clients with portfolios in excess of £150,000 and the charge for this was based on a percentage of the total value of the assets within the scope of the agreement, subject to a minimum annual fee of £1,500. 

Charges were collected at monthly, quarterly or half yearly intervals as agreed. 

The agreement could be terminated at any time, without penalty, by either party giving 30 days’ written notice to the other party. 

Mr and Mrs C got advice in March 2015 about pension and Isa investments and drawing income for that financial year. 

An income shortfall of £1,000 a month was identified and the adviser set out how that would be addressed over the next year. 

Towry didn’t do enough.Lesley Stead

Ashcourt Rowan’s private client manager then wrote to Mr and Mrs C on 1 December 2015 to alert them to the fact their adviser was leaving and that “the primary objective was to ensure that you continue to receive the excellent advice and high quality service that you are used to.

“To that end, I will be looking to introduce you to an appropriate financial planner within the next few weeks and I will be in touch again soon with more details.” 

But Towry didn’t write to Mr and Mrs C again until 7 March 2016 with an up to date valuation of their investments and a confirmation of charges schedule.

The letter added: “If you would like to have a discussion regarding your investments, circumstances or financial planning needs, we will be very happy to hear from you. 

“If you do not feel in need of this, we will diary for a further 12 months and contact you again regarding. Should you require an appointment, please contact myself on the number below.” 

Mr C complained to Towry on 27 April 2016 that it had not done what it said it would do in its letter of 1 December 2015.

He said Towry hadn’t introduced him to a new financial planner or carried out an annual review. 

Mr C then gave 30 days’ notice to terminate the agreement. 

Towry argued its letter of 7 March 2016 – sent before the anniversary date of the agreement – offered a review and it was sorry a new adviser hadn’t been appointed by the time the review was due. 

But Towry argued its private client manager was there to oversee the account and if there was any need for advice he would have addressed it. 

When the ombudsman asked Towry why it had taken longer than a few weeks to allocate a new adviser a spokesman for the intermediary said it had capacity issues and a number of advisers had left at the same time to set up their own firm. 

Towry claimed if the couple had asked for a review an adviser would have been appointed.

A spokesman for Towry Limited, which is now part of Tilney Financial Planning Limited, said the service provided had fallen short of what Mr and Mrs C were entitled to expect.  

In a final decision, ombudsman Lesley Stead said: “Towry didn’t do enough. Its private client manager might be a chartered financial planner but Mr and Mrs C had been promised, some months earlier, their own new financial planner. 

“I can understand why they felt there’d been enough time to sort things out. And why they may not have wanted to contact the private client manager, unless they needed urgent advice. 

“Taking into account Towry’s several failings I thought it was fair that Towry should refund the fees it had taken.”

Towry was told to refund fees for April and May 2016. 

Towry was also told to pay £100 compensation to Mr and Mrs C for distress and inconvenience. 

emma.hughes@ft.com