Entitled to larger payment?

DoctorStrange

I agree with the OP here.

When rectifying errors, the general rule of thumb is to put the client back into the position they would have been, had no error occurred.

The OP invested the full balance into an ETF, which returned 17.5%.

That full balance was £40k, but should have been £44k. Had the error not occurred, the OP would have invested £44k and generated £7,700 profit so the make whole calculation is £7700 minus £7000 = £700 due.

I personally wouldn't settle for less

P1Fanatic

DoctorStrange said:

I agree with the OP here.

When rectifying errors, the general rule of thumb is to put the client back into the position they would have been, had no error occurred.

The OP invested the full balance into an ETF, which returned 17.5%.

That full balance was £40k, but should have been £44k. Had the error not occurred, the OP would have invested £44k and generated £7,700 profit so the make whole calculation is £7700 minus £7000 = £700 due.

I personally wouldn't settle for less

I read it that the OP topped up their ISA with an additional £4k. That £4k never made it and therefore no contract note was made to buy additional units of that ETF they had the original £40k invested in. If that is the case then there is no way to prove 100% that the OP would have invested in that same ETF vs any other fund.

lozzy1965

P1Fanatic said:

DoctorStrange said:

I agree with the OP here.

When rectifying errors, the general rule of thumb is to put the client back into the position they would have been, had no error occurred.

The OP invested the full balance into an ETF, which returned 17.5%.

That full balance was £40k, but should have been £44k. Had the error not occurred, the OP would have invested £44k and generated £7,700 profit so the make whole calculation is £7700 minus £7000 = £700 due.

I personally wouldn't settle for less

I read it that the OP topped up their ISA with an additional £4k. That £4k never made it and therefore no contract note was made to buy additional units of that ETF they had the original £40k invested in. If that is the case then there is no way to prove 100% that the OP would have invested in that same ETF vs any other fund.

Except "trading" implies buying and selling, and the OP has stated that they "traded" the entire amount.

Some of the other comments on here regarding 'not noticing the missing money' meaning there is some blame on the OP because of this, sound a little strange to me.

P1Fanatic

lozzy1965 said:

P1Fanatic said:

DoctorStrange said:

I agree with the OP here.

When rectifying errors, the general rule of thumb is to put the client back into the position they would have been, had no error occurred.

The OP invested the full balance into an ETF, which returned 17.5%.

That full balance was £40k, but should have been £44k. Had the error not occurred, the OP would have invested £44k and generated £7,700 profit so the make whole calculation is £7700 minus £7000 = £700 due.

I personally wouldn't settle for less

I read it that the OP topped up their ISA with an additional £4k. That £4k never made it and therefore no contract note was made to buy additional units of that ETF they had the original £40k invested in. If that is the case then there is no way to prove 100% that the OP would have invested in that same ETF vs any other fund.

Except "trading" implies buying and selling, and the OP has stated that they "traded" the entire amount.

Some of the other comments on here regarding 'not noticing the missing money' meaning there is some blame on the OP because of this, sound a little strange to me.

Again I read that as the total amount that they are at now with everything invested after this mistake was uncovered. But it would be good if the OP can clarify. If there was a trade made and contract note given then yes that's a totally different scenario.

Albermarle

Some of the other comments on here regarding 'not noticing the missing money' meaning there is some blame on the OP because of this, sound a little strange to me.

If the issue were to go to court ( or similar), then the fact the OP did not notice that the £4k was missing would be jumped upon .

It is common in litigation that one side is not 100% wrong or right, and there is usually some fault on both sides. 

Malthusian

Was an open order for the ETF placed when the transfer request was made, to be completed as soon as the money came in?

The talk of "trading" suggests it wasn't, but doesn't hurt to check. If there was, it would bolster the cause for claiming a financial loss if the ETF went up for, say, a month or two. After that responsibility starts to shift towards the OP to chase up the transfer if he still wanted it done.

Assuming there wasn't an open buy order, £100 is generous. The OP has made no loss and I wouldn't be surprised to see £50 or £75 offered.

The Financial Ombudsman only considers actual losses, not what-ifs, and I would expect them to take a similar view.