The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has issued a mixed judgement on complaints against True Potential’s online-driven annual review process, upholding one while dismissing the other.
True Potential’s hybrid advice model has sparked plenty of debate in recent years, with ongoing questions about how it all fits together for clients. A fresh FOS case has finally shed real light on what that 0.5% annual fee actually buys you in terms of continued support.
This particular ruling involves a husband and wife (anonymised as Mr and Mrs C) and while there were a number of issues involved, the crucial one is about whether the ongoing advice service is being properly delivered.
The couple started paying for ongoing advice back in January 2019. True Potential defended its setup as solid value, pointing to the choice of an annual review (which the clients did take up in some years), round-the-clock access via a tailored client website, and repeated attempts by advisers to schedule those reviews.
The FOS lays it out plainly: True Potential’s annual suitability checks lean heavily on the online portal. Clients get nudges and reminders to log in and complete them ahead of their review deadline. If nothing’s changed in your circumstances, it wraps up digitally, no need for a sit-down unless something flags up. Fair enough, really; if your situation’s steady year on year, why revisit a recommendation that was spot-on before?
For Mr C, the ombudsman found he’d ticked the boxes properly. He filled out the portal questionnaires in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, with no in-person meetings required since he reported no shifts in his setup. Add in at least one face-to-face chat, a home visit, and a Zoom call, and the FOS reckoned he’d got “notable value” from the service.
“They appear to have received a significant part of the ongoing comprehensive service,” the decision notes. “They had relatively good access to their adviser, and Mr C, in the main, used that access consistently… On balance, based on the evidence of contacts between both sides, I’m satisfied he received the value he paid for up to 2024.”
Mrs C’s story, though, didn’t land the same way. Records show reminders pinged her way in September and October 2022, then January and February 2024. True Potential admits she only completed one online review, in February 2023, but counters that she’d logged into the portal a whopping 108 times over the period – plenty of chances to spot those prompts. Their line? They bent over backwards; if she didn’t take up the offer, that’s on her.
The FOS wasn’t buying it entirely. Sure, the logins and reminders were there, but the ombudsman stressed that charging for a service you haven’t delivered, regardless of whether the client’s ignoring the invites, doesn’t cut it. The big gap? Unlike her husband, Mrs C skipped the questionnaires most years, so she missed out on the core of what the service promises.
That meant no “fair value” for her, plain and simple. “I echo the investigator’s point on the regulatory expectation that a service like ongoing advice should be delivered, not just offered, when fees are being charged,” the ruling states. “The annual suitability reviews were a major component, so by missing them (bar that one in 2023), she didn’t get the main feature.”
It chimes with the FCA’s February nudge to firms which puts the onus squarely on advisers to prove they’re providing bang for the buck, not just dangling the opportunity.
As a result, True Potential’s been told to refund Mrs C’s ongoing fees, plus 8% interest for the affected years. Mr C’s ongoing service gripe? Shot down.
A True Potential spokesperson pushed back: “We take our customer management responsibilities extremely seriously and are confident we consistently abide by the regulations.”
Our take on this:
This mixed ruling from the Financial Ombudsman Service highlights a crucial distinction: offering an annual review online isn’t the same as delivering it.
For many clients using online portals to access their annual reviews, there’s an assumption that logging in or seeing reminders is enough to demonstrate engagement. However, the Ombudsman’s decision makes it clear that responsibility for delivering fair value remains with the firm, not the client. If an adviser continues to charge for an ongoing advice service, they must be able to show that meaningful reviews actually took place and that clients received the guidance they paid for.
The lesson for consumers is simple: if you’re paying for an annual review or ongoing advice, check that it’s genuinely being delivered, not just offered through an online portal. Firms are now expected by the FCA to “switch off” fees where there’s no active engagement or demonstrable value.
If you suspect that you’ve been charged for an ongoing service that wasn’t properly provided, particularly in relation to pension, investment, or ISA advice, it may be worth speaking to us to review your position and understand whether you could be owed compensation.
