Quilter - advisor fees

lindylootoo

I've recently taken over my investments from my advisor but in the past he used Quilter. Can I claim back his fees? 

Keep_pedalling

If you mean your adviser was using the Quilter platform to hold your investments as apposed to an alternative platform such as Transact, you don’t have any sort of claim against his fees for his/her choice of platform.

dunstonh

lindylootoo said:

I've recently taken over my investments from my advisor but in the past he used Quilter. Can I claim back his fees? 

That is a strange question.      Why do you think you can claim the fees back?       You have given absolutely no context to your question.

gm0

If you have a complaint of the sort where the adviser has charged you for ongoing advice. 
And has not done the minimum level of contact time and "annual servicing". 

Then you may have a legitimate claim against them for fees paid for services not received. 
The rules on annual servicing changed.  And so when you started the contract matters. 

No more exact from me - not my circus (DIY investor).  So not my monkeys to care about. 

In that narrow scenario - paid for something - did not get it.  Regulator rules broken.  Refund claim possible for the period where the service fell short.  Make complaint to and about adviser.  Deadlock.  Ombudsman.  They really don't have to do much to get off.  Letter/email and some blah blah have done a review - no change needed contact.  They have to be quite wilful about sleeping dogs lie idleness and poor record keeping to put their fee at risk.

But as to fees paid to a product or platform to hold investment funds in a tax wrapper. 

No chance you can retcon the "higher fees" you now feel you would retrospectively rather not have paid to hold the same or a different portfolio now.  Bought the ticket.  Took the ride.  Chalk it up and move on

lindylootoo

Grounds for Compensation Claims Against Quilter

• Investment Mis-selling: Many clients have been on the receiving end of advice that was either negligent or ill-fitted to their financial needs and goals, leading to investments that undermined their own economic stability and future planning.
• Inappropriate Fund Categories: In some cases, clients were advised to invest in Quilter's own funds, which were more expensive and not necessarily the best fit for their needs, despite the availability of cheaper and more suitable options. This caused unnecessary financial strain.
• Lack of Annual Review: Another common complaint is the lack of annual reviews, where clients are charged for advisory services that were promised but not delivered according to the agreed terms. This failure not only breaches trust but also the service agreement.

These issues, amongst others, collectively point towards a systemic failure in certain aspects of Quilter’s service delivery, necessitating a robust response in the form of compensation claims.  

Just wondering if I have a legitimate claim as I know my investments were held on the Quilter platform  

dunstonh

Just wondering if I have a legitimate claim as I know my investments were held on the Quilter platform  

The ambulance chaser you have copied and pasted that from is not on about the Quilter platform.  They are on about the Quilter salesforce.    Quilter agents have to use Quilter platform but IFAs are whole of market and can use any provider that retails via intermediaries (and that includes Quilter)

• Investment Mis-selling: Many clients have been on the receiving end of advice that was either negligent or ill-fitted to their financial needs and goals, leading to investments that undermined their own economic stability and future planning.

That is your typical ambulance chaser BS to draw you in.   There is no evidence to suggest that Quilter FAs have done anything wrong.  Their complaint ratios are in the expected ballpark.

nappropriate Fund Categories: In some cases, clients were advised to invest in Quilter's own funds, which were more expensive and not necessarily the best fit for their needs, despite the availability of cheaper and more suitable options. This caused unnecessary financial strain.

This is just mischief making.  Indeed, it is potential libel as it falsely accusing Quilter of doing something wrong when they haven't.  Quilter FAs are not independent.  They are agents of Quilter.  That is why the Quilter FAs sell the Quilter platform using Quilter funds.    That is not a valid complaint reason.   It's a bit like going into an Apple store but then saying Apple are breaking the law because they didn't sell Android phones.

• Lack of Annual Review: Another common complaint is the lack of annual reviews, where clients are charged for advisory services that were promised but not delivered according to the agreed terms. This failure not only breaches trust but also the service agreement.

There is some possibility there but Quilter (and under their original name intrinsic) were pretty hot on getting their agents to do the reviews.   The requirement for annual reviews only started in 2018 and did not apply to every tax wrapper and did not apply to commission based plans set up before 2013.

These issues, amongst others, collectively point towards a systemic failure in certain aspects of Quilter’s service delivery, necessitating a robust response in the form of compensation claims.  

I think Quilter are the second largest salesforce.  So, its inevitable that a greedy mudslinging ambulance chaser would try it on with them to see if they have the same issues as SJP. 

Thankfully, the FOS have got fed up with claims companies and is introducing a charge to the claims company to refer their complaints to the FOS.   Its aimed to stop claims companies putting in speculative claims.

to quote the FOS:  .." the way some CMCs and other professional representatives work at volume, sending large numbers of cases that have no merit with limited or no due diligence evident, means we use our finite resources doing work on cases that do not then result in an outcome for the complainant that is favourable compared to the one they received when the respondent firm issued them a final response".

Just wondering if I have a legitimate claim as I know my investments were held on the Quilter platform  

So, back onto your question and we still need more info.
a) did you use an agent of Quilter or an IFA?
b) was your product arranged before or after 1st January 2013? 
c) were you paying your adviser an annual fee? 
d) you mention "in the past" - when did you end -  the requirement for reviews "at least annually" started in 2018 but only if you were paying an annual fee.  Pre-2013 commission cases (fee basis started Jan 2013) are not required to provide ongoing services unless the commission is turned into a fee due to a disturbance event after Jan 2013.

gm0

It really does require something quite eccentric to happen for a claim about "wrong funds" to succeed.

All an FA or IFA has to do is produce the required deliverables under FCA conduct of business.  Fee statements.  Critical yield calculation. Cashflow projection. That stuff.

They can recommend a new provider and platform and fund set.  And likely will - new shiny thing - to bring assets under management and subject to their advice fee. 

The funds DO NOT HAVE TO BE CHEAPER than the current ones to be deemed suitable and meeting FCA rules for advice.

The funds may be a better or worse portfolio but nobody knows that in advance.  Not you. Not the provider. Not the adviser.

You can take a new vs old view on the amount of speculative risk taken or the currency or the geographic or sector or ethical differences.  But it's not something which makes it "not suitable" and complainable about. 

An adviser is unlikely to recommend the same portfolio as the existing solution or scheme.  As it does rather open up a line of questioning on why am I paying more for EXACTLY the same thing.  And 0.5% to be told do what you do now. (Which has a value of expertise and confidence building). So this scenario is unlikely.

The only area where the very lazy eccentric or drunk agent could slip up is if they fail to do the "fact find" and fail to translate said facts into a "risk taken is appropriate for the client" portfolio.  Based on the rules at the time the advice is delivered.  Which if long ago.  Is very different to now.  The suitability bar - funny though this sounds - was even lower then than it is now.

Retail FS is now regulated more and slightly less wild west in terms of hidden rakes and commissions

The new duty of care rules are interesting as they are an avenue for retrospectively deciding the advisers have been bad again.  And shifting the rules based on what has happened.  This possibility tends to drive up insurance costs for adviser lifetime indemnity policies.  Which then shows up in advice fees.  FCA having wiggle room to move around and police the space - comes at a cost.  Higher advice fees increase the size of the advice gap - people who want it - but for whom it is not economic to provide it within the current ruleset.