Property Investment Decision Reference 2022-0364

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Subject Matter: Property Investment
• Reference: 2022-0364
• Date: 14 November 2022
• Finantial Sector: Investment
• Conducts Complained Of: Value of policy at surrender less than expected or projected,Misrepresentation (at point of sale or after)

Decision Ref:

2022-0364

Sector:

Investment

Product / Service:

Property Investment

Conduct(s) complained of:

Value of policy at surrender less than expected or

projected

Misrepresentation (at point of sale or after)

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

This complaint concerns the Complainants’ investment funds and the change of fund pricing

method by the Provider.

The Complainants’ Case

The Complainants submit that they consider themselves to be long term investors and they

are aware of the risks associated with their investments in the Provider’s various property

funds.

They say that on 24 January 2020, the method used by the Provider to calculate the funds

prices, moved from an “acquisition” to a “disposal” basis. The Complainants assert that,

consequently, the Provider “unilaterally devalued” their holding by 7% and they only

became aware of this, on 28 January 2020.

The Complainants advise that on 18 March 2020 they decided to revert their holdings to

cash, and that on 19 March 2020 the Provider introduced a rolling six month moratorium

notice period for all switching an encashment requests. The Complainants state that they

subsequently wrote to the Provider on numerous occasions but did not get “the courtesy of

an acknowledgement or a reply”.

The Complainants submit that the Provider’s definitions and their understanding of (i) unit

linking and (ii) acquisition/disposal basis and (iii) moratorium are “the most unjust /sleight

of hand and unfair to investors”. The Complainants state that their problem stems from the