Hubwise Securities Limited · DRN-6175263

The complaint Mr W has complained that Hubwise Securities Limited (‘Hubwise’) didn’t carry out a trade instruction. He would like to be reimbursed for the investment losses he has incurred. Mr W is represented in bringing his complaint by his financial adviser. What happened In September 2024 Mr W’s financial adviser instructed trades be carried out on his two accounts via the Hubwise online platform but they weren’t executed. Mr W’s representative raised a complaint with Hubwise who didn’t think it had done anything wrong. It said it had responded to Mr W’s trade request and his representative was informed that if the sub-account portfolios were to be aligned an instruction would need to be made but in response it was informed all was well and closed its query ticket. Dissatisfied with the outcome Mr W brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our investigator who considered the complaint didn’t think Hubwise needed to do anything more. He couldn’t agree that Mr W’s representative’s response to Hubwise’s message was sufficient to confirm the rebalance of the sub-accounts should go ahead. Mr W’s representative argued that Hubwise’s platform landing page and portfolio summary screens clearly displayed the correct target allocations and suggested the accounts were invested in line with the trade instruction. It was only later that it became clear the rebalance went ahead. Mr W's representative said that responsibility lay with both parties, but Hubwise didn’t agree. As the complaint remains unresolved, it has been passed to me for a decision in my role as ombudsman. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. After doing so, I’ve reached the same conclusion as the investigator and broadly for the same reasons. I’ll explain why. Mr W held a Primary account with Hubwise and on 6 September 2024 his financial adviser requested it to be split between two sub-accounts – a Multi Investment Strategy (‘MIS’). 40% of the assets in the Primary account were to be transferred to one of the sub-accounts and 60% to the other. Hubwise responded to the request on the same day; ‘Before we proceed, please confirm us on below – 1) Acc NO – [number], is this correct? 2) Model specifies for 60% allocation is – Active Index Adventurous Portfolio V4.1?

-- 1 of 4 --

(11/12/2023) 3) Model specifies for 40% allocation is – Investment Evolution Adventurous (V5.0? (18/04/2024)’ On 9 September 2024 Hubwise confirmed to Mr W’s financial adviser that; ‘We have created the MIS and have transferred the assets as requested – [details of accounts/percentage split] If you require the sub account portfolios to be in-line with the model allocations, kindly instruct a rebalance over the portal to get these changes reflected on the accounts please. Please review and let us know all looks good?’ [original emphasis] On 10 September 2024 Hubwise contacted Mr W’s financial adviser again; ‘Could you please review the MIS and instruct the rebalance to get changes reflected. Let us know if further assistance is needed? [details of accounts/percentage split] In response on 12 September 2024 Hubwise responded; ‘That all looks great to me, thank you for your help with this.’ On 13 September 2024 Hubwise contacted Mr W’s financial adviser for the third time; ‘We could see rebalance has not been instructed on subaccounts yet. As conveyed, please note, subaccounts won’t be in line with new model allocation until rebalance instructed. Please do the required. We believe we have now addressed this ticket in full, and as such we will marked it as ‘resolved’...’ [original emphasis] So, there were two stages that needed to be carried out. The first was the request to transfer from Mr W’s Primary account and to be split 60%/40% between two sub-accounts. Hubwise completed the first stage and then sought instruction from Mr W’s financial adviser regarding the rebalancing of those two sub-accounts to align with the model portfolio. The financial adviser’s response of 12 September 2024 indicates it was happy with the action carried out but Hubwise did chase again the following day as no action had been taken and that the financial adviser should take action if anything more needed to be done. As a result of Hubwise not receiving a response to its message of 13 September 2024 it marked its ticket as resolved. Mr W’s financial adviser says this removed the ticket from its landing page which it took to mean the sub-account alignment had been completed. I can see on the file that the financial adviser has said the communication, processing and reporting was unclear, but I disagree. Even if the financial adviser considered the first two messages from Hubwise to be ambiguous I’m satisfied the final message sent on 13 September 2024 was clear – and in bold text – in that the sub-account rebalances in line

-- 2 of 4 --

with the model portfolio hadn’t taken place and the financial adviser needed to take action if this was to be done. Hubwise concluded that as it had sent sufficient reminders it could mark the potential outstanding action as resolved. And I don’t find it was unfair or unreasonable in reaching that conclusion. I think it likely the financial adviser missed the message of 13 September 2024, but I can’t see the responsibility for that lay with Hubwise. The request for action from the financial adviser – if the sub-accounts were to be aligned with model portfolios – was made clear. And as this was the financial adviser’s original intention, I think it would have taken action if it had read the message. But as I say, I don’t think that was the fault of Hubwise. Mr W’s financial adviser has said the core issue wasn’t the communication but the visibility and presentation of information on Hubwise’s platform after that. The screens the financial adviser used – as the account user – displayed the correct target allocations and that the accounts were fully invested in line with its instructions, so the platform interface was misleading. But looking at the screenshots that Hubwise provided I can see there was a basic portfolio breakdown on the account home screen which showed the value of the sub-accounts. But the screenshot provided by Mr W’s representative showed the model portfolio allocation however, not how the funds were invested. This would have been evidenced by a monetary value if the funds had been invested whereas the screenshot provide by the financial adviser didn’t show any monetary value – just the percentage allocation of the model portfolio. Information about how the funds were invested would be obtained by selection of a ‘Valuation’ from the home screen which would then provide an Investment Overview and Investment Allocation valuations. I appreciate Mr W’s financial adviser disagrees. It accepts it could have taken the third step to check the sub-account was invested by reviewing the valuation but said the home screen showing the value of funds held as ‘Mkt’ which it concluded meant the portfolio was invested. And that the second check – the model allocation screen – confirmed that the allocations were in place. It said a third step – by checking the Valuation option from the home screen – was reliant upon the ticket system alerting it that the rebalance hadn’t been completed and without that ticket the steps it had taken were appropriate. But I disagree. The message sent by Hubwise to Mr W’s financial adviser – which was the third one sent – made clear that the sub-accounts wouldn’t be in line with the new model allocation until instructed. And that action needed to be taken. But the representative didn’t give an instruction to rebalance the account and Hubwise had received confirmation that ‘all looks great’ before that final message was sent and so closed its outstanding ticket, which I don’t find to be an unreasonable conclusion for it to have reached bearing in mind the preceding messages. On balance, I don’t find Hubwise to be at fault – either partially or fully – for the sub-accounts remaining unaligned to the model allocations. I’m satisfied it sent sufficient warning that the allocation for the sub-accounts hadn’t taken place and that evidence of that was available for the financial adviser to view on its user platform. It follows that I don’t uphold the complaint. I appreciate Mr W’s representative will be disappointed in the outcome. But I hope I have been able to explain how and why I have reached my decision.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons given, I don’t uphold Mr W’s complaint about Hubwise Securities Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Catherine Langley Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --