An extra £250 in compensation has been ordered to be paid by Cofunds, after a widow was led to believe £260,000 was hidden from her by her husband.
Ombudsman Ivor Graham said that the widow, Mrs D, had been “bemused” and gone through a range of emotions due to Cofunds giving her the wrong information.
The husband of Mrs D had held power of attorney for another individual who possessed significant investments with Cofunds. On Mr D’s passing, the financial adviser of the individual informed Cofunds, who sent correspondence to the late Mr D, acknowledging his change of address. Unaware her husband possessed this power of attorney, Mrs D contacted Cofunds in order to clarify the situation.
Mrs D spoke to the platform on three occasions.
Although she did have a reference number, the platform had difficulty when attempting to locate the file and in the first phone call, indicated some investment would have been held by her late husband.
Mrs D was told in the subsequent call that her husband had possessed investments of some £260,000. Mrs D was confused as well as surprised at this point, as she had not been aware that her husband had withheld information of such a large sum from her.
In the final call, Cofunds informed her that Mr D had acted as a power of attorney and were unable to tell her anything regarding the investment.
Following her complaint, the platform apologised as well as sending her £100 compensation and a hamper.
Cofunds disputed the claim made by the Financial Ombudsman Service adjudicators for an additional £250 in compensation. Instead they suggested a further £100 sum.
Mr Graham stated, having reviewed Mrs D’s complaint: “I can imagine she went through a range of emotions. I don’t think either member of staff appreciated Mrs D’s situation and I don’t believe the situation was properly explained to her.
“It is clear that she isn’t experienced in financial matters and she was left somewhat bemused.
“She was given wrong information at a time when she was dealing with the death of her husband and she was caused unnecessary distress.”
The Ombudsman ruled in a final decision that the extra £250 should be paid in compensation to Mrs D.
