Finlay* invested in an international shares fund. Seven years later, Finlay told his provider he was concerned at the reduced value of his investment. Six months later, after a further reduction in the value of his investment, Finlay asked the provider to immediately cash up the units making up his investment and pay him back for the losses he had experienced. The provider cashed up the units. Finlay requested a payment from the provider for the difference between what he received and the amount which would have been available if the money had been invested, on a compound interest basis, in a term deposit at an interest rate of 5%. The provider said the reduction in value of Finlay’s investment was caused by changes in the market and could not have been predicted. Finlay suggested there was something wrong with the administration of the investment fund, highlighting the fees shown for the investment fund in the 2007 annual report for the plan.
Finlay signed the application form which said he had received, read and understood the Investment Statement. Even a skim read of the Investment Statement would have given Finlay the key details, including that investment returns were not guaranteed, and the original investment amount was not guaranteed. The provider had sent Finlay a half yearly statement with details of his investment, together with an investment report. This showed the investment had the potential for high risk and high returns, suitable for long-term investments. The return for the investment fund was very close to the return for the index to which the investment fund was aligned.
Complaint not upheld.
*Names have been changed.