IFA initial report v unsatisfactory do I have to pay

eskbanker

cfw1994 said:

dunstonh said:

I have written twice to the IFA and she has insisted on the bill being paid.    

Which is logical.  You employed them.  You agreed on the price.  The job was carried out.  You now need to pay the bill.

Curious. 

I agree that the OP I has many ‘complaints that are something of their misunderstanding, potentially…..

….but are you suggesting the first two points are acceptable expected behaviour for an IFA?

”

- Misstated value of our assets by 65k.
- Included wrong information about proposed new pension arrangements.

”

If I was being asked to pay a fairly significant sum, and was twice told that those errors were acceptable, I would be directly onto the complaints process with a view to escalating to an Ombudsman if the business didn’t make a suitable gesture 🙄

Feels slightly odd that you chose to gloss over those 🤷‍♂️

That seems a bit of a strawman - I don't think anyone (either the IFA or posters on here) is suggesting that errors are acceptable as such, but conversely they're not necessarily material enough to constitute grounds for non-payment either.

OP chose not to answer the question about how the IFA responded to the points raised, so we don't know exactly what was said in the two letters or any response, but it appeared that OP may have been angling for no payment at all and talking of lawyers ("But it's shoddy work imho.  Do you think we have to pay and any suggestions for lawyers to turn to?"), rather than focusing on having errors corrected, i.e. the tone of the correspondence may not have been particularly constructive....

dunstonh

If I was being asked to pay a fairly significant sum, and was twice told that those errors were acceptable, I would be directly onto the complaints process with a view to escalating to an Ombudsman if the business didn’t make a suitable gesture 🙄

That would be bizarre.      Going to lawyers or using the FOS over a typing mistake is massive overkill.     The FOS would throw it out anyway, as it has no impact on the advice.

Plus, we don't know if it was a mistake. As already mentioned, advisers will often list assets in different ways (with or without savings.  With or without chattels.  Primary assets only).       And as previously mentioned, the API that drags the data over may have flaws. In areas of advice where asset values are irrelevant, there may be a lot of rounding.  Values may be older as well where there hasn't been a need to update to a more recent figure.  

Feels slightly odd that you chose to gloss over those 🤷‍♂️

Which is what most people would do if they spotted an irrelevant typing error.   
You made grammatical errors in your post.  Yes, posting here is not commercial, but I am sure you didn't mean to do that. It shows how easy it is to do.