A High Court judgment in R (Wills & Trust Independent Financial Planning Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2026] EWHC 1566 (Admin) has clarified how far the Financial Ombudsman Service can go when it decides how redress should be calculated. If you have a complaint against a financial adviser that is still trading, this case is worth understanding. The good news for complainants is that the substance of the Ombudsman’s decision survived. The correction was about method, not merit.
What was the case about?
Wills & Trust, a financial planning firm, wrote to its investors in July 2018 recommending a newly established discretionary management firm, describing it as wholly owned by the same staff shareholders who owned Wills & Trust. That statement was true at the time but later became false. The investors followed the recommendation, and in October 2023 they moved to another adviser.
The Ombudsman found the 2018 letter contained a misrepresentation and an unsuitable recommendation, and that, had the investors known the true position, they would have moved their portfolio elsewhere in September 2018. He awarded redress based on the difference between the portfolio’s actual value at the date of payment and the value it would have had if it had been invested in line with a benchmark from September 2018.
What did the High Court decide?
Wills & Trust challenged the decision on five grounds. Four were dismissed, so the findings of misrepresentation and unsuitable recommendation stand. The firm succeeded only on the fifth ground, about how the redress figure was calculated. Because the Ombudsman’s method ran to the date of payment, the amount would rise or fall with how the portfolio performed after the investors had moved to a new adviser in 2023, something Wills & Trust had no control over and which had nothing to do with the failures found. The Court held that this reasoning was flawed and that the loss could instead be assessed as at October 2023, with benchmark returns or interest added from that point.
The judgment also made a point complainants should take seriously. The Ombudsman deals with the complaint that was actually referred. It cannot start with a complaint about one thing and end up investigating the firm for something else it noticed along the way. How you frame your complaint matters.
What does this mean for you?
In our experience people sometimes read headlines like this and assume the Ombudsman route has been weakened. It has not. The Court confirmed the Ombudsman has a wide discretion to decide what fair redress is. What it requires is that the calculation follows a rational method connected to the failures identified. Findings on the merits of poor advice were left untouched.
Two practical lessons stand out. First, a complaint to the FOS about a still trading firm remains a strong route to redress where advice was unsuitable or a firm misrepresented the position. Second, the way a complaint is framed and evidenced at the outset shapes everything that follows, including how any redress is calculated.
What should you do next?
If you believe you received unsuitable advice or were misled by a firm that is still trading, talk to us about your complaint. We start with a free, no obligation consultation, we help you frame the complaint properly, and if you proceed we act on a no win no fee basis. No outcome is ever guaranteed, but a well built case gives you the best chance of the redress you are entitled to.
Sources: 4 Pump Court case note, 24 June 2026; Judgment: [2026] EWHC 1566 (Admin)
