The High Court has handed down judgment in R (Wills & Trust Independent Financial Planning Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2026] EWHC 1566 (Admin), and it is worth understanding if you are weighing up a Financial Ombudsman complaint against an adviser that is still trading. The firm won on one narrow point about how redress was calculated. On the substance, the finding that the advice was unsuitable, the Ombudsman was upheld.
What the case was about
In July 2018, Wills & Trust wrote to its investors recommending a newly established discretionary management firm. The letter described that firm as wholly owned by the same staff shareholders who owned Wills & Trust. That was true when the letter was written, but it later stopped being true. The investors followed the recommendation and stayed until October 2023, when they moved to another adviser.
The Ombudsman found the 2018 letter contained a misrepresentation and an unsuitable recommendation. Had the investors known the true position, he concluded, they would have moved their portfolio elsewhere in September 2018. Redress was set at the difference between the portfolio’s actual value at the date of payment and the value it would have reached in a benchmark investment from September 2018.
What the High Court decided
Wills & Trust challenged the decision on five grounds and lost on four, so the findings of misrepresentation and unsuitable financial advice stand. The firm succeeded only on the redress calculation. Because the Ombudsman’s method ran to the date of payment, the award would rise or fall with how the portfolio performed after the investors had moved to a new adviser in 2023, which had nothing to do with the failures found. The Court held the loss should instead be assessed as at October 2023, with benchmark returns or interest added from that point.
The judgment also made a point every complainant should take seriously: the Ombudsman decides the complaint that was actually referred to it, not other issues it happens to notice along the way. In plain terms, how you frame your complaint at the outset shapes what the Ombudsman can do with it.
What this means for your complaint
It would be easy to read the headline and assume the Ombudsman route has been weakened. It has not. The Court confirmed the Financial Ombudsman Service keeps a wide discretion to decide what fair redress looks like; the calculation simply has to follow a rational method connected to the failures identified. Every finding about the poor advice itself was left untouched.
If you received unsuitable pension or investment advice from a firm that is still trading, two things follow. A Financial Ombudsman complaint remains a strong, free route to compensation. And a complaint that is properly framed and evidenced from day one puts you in the best position on everything that follows, including how your redress is calculated.
What should you do next?
If you believe you were given 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. Call 0800 041 8359 or make an enquiry.
