Quilter Financial Planning Solutions Limited · DRN-6085380

The complaint Mr W complains that Quilter Financial Planning Solutions Limited trading as Positive Solutions (Quilter) took commission payments from his investments and provided no service for those payments. What happened In 2012 Mr W and his wife – Mrs W – met with an adviser from a firm which was an appointed representative of Quilter. For simplicity in this decision I will just refer to Quilter as the respondent in the complaint. Quilter’s adviser met with both Mr and Mrs W and carried out a fact find in preparation for providing Mr W with a recommendation regarding his pension in October 2012. That recommendation was to transfer his existing personal pensions to a new provider in order to take out a protected retirement policy. As a result of meeting with Quilter Mr W signed a transfer of servicing request form, for his Individual Savings Account (ISA) and his joint investment account with Mrs W. The form for each recipient said, ‘I/we write to inform you that I/we would like the responsibility for the future servicing and renewal commission of the above plans to be transferred to the following company …’. They were signed and dated on 16 July 2012. Mr W did not receive any advice or review of these policies from Quilter. In September 2024 the provider of the joint investment account contacted them to explain that, following a review, it was converting the current holdings to a different share class that had cheaper fund costs. It went on to explain that there was a financial adviser registered on their account and that the conversion to the new share class would end the trail commission. Mr W complained to Quilter regarding the payment of trail commission to Quilter on the basis that: it had provided no advice on the set up of the investments, provided no subsequent advice on the funds, and had not been authorised to take the commission. Quilter responded to explain that it didn’t think Mr W’s complaint should be upheld. It explained that ‘trail commission’ is an annual fee paid to advisers over the lifetime of the recommended product. It explained that Mr W had signed the transfer of servicing request which included the switching of commission to Quilter. There was no agreement entered into to provide any ongoing advice. Mr W didn’t accept Quilter’s answer so referred his complaint to our service. One of our investigators looked into the circumstances and explained why he didn’t think Quilter had done anything wrong. Mr W still didn’t agree that what happened was fair and requested an ombudsman’s decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 2 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. For reasons that are essentially the same as those already given to Mr W, I am not upholding his complaint. In assessing the actions of a business I need to do so with reference to the rules and regulations that were in place at the time of the events in question. What that means here is, I need to consider whether transferring the ‘trail commission’, from the advice firm that was previously in receipt of it to Quilter, was allowed within the rules at the time. And, on this, I’m satisfied that the explanation of the rules that Mr W has already been given by our investigator is correct. The regulator carried out a Retail Distribution Review (RDR) in 2012 and the changes that it brought about applied after the switching of the trail commission in this case. The changes brought about after the RDR meant that firms could not be paid for ongoing commission without providing an agreed service for that charge. In changing the rules around ongoing charges, the regulator made the decision not to retrospectively change the rules for commission payments that were already in place. Which meant that the commission being paid by Mr W was still allowed to be paid. I understand that Mr W explains that he had not authorised the payment. Whilst I can understand his frustration, any trail commission on either the ISA or joint investment account was being paid as part of an earlier contractual agreement. Firms were allowed to transfer the commission payment, which is what I think happened in 2012 when Mr W signed his authority for that to happen on these accounts. I think that the forms he signed were clear and that he therefore did authorise that. He did not enter into any agreement with Quilter for ongoing financial advice for these products. He was not, therefore being charged for the provision of advice. So it didn’t do anything wrong in not providing advice on those accounts. My final decision For the above reasons, I do not uphold Mr W’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Gary Lane Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --