FSCS and FOS receive queries over Woodford suspension

More complaints could come through next month

Woodford
2 minutes

The Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme have received queries from investors stuck in Woodford Equity Income over their rights to compensation.

The Woodford Equity Income fund, alongside its authorised corporate director (ACD) Link Fund Solutions and Hargreaves Lansdown, all came under scrutiny following the fund’s suspension on 3 June.

A spokesperson for the Fos confirmed it has received complaints which relate to Woodford Equity Income.

The spokesperson said if a consumer is unhappy with how a business has handled a complaint, they can approach Fos to look at the case, but they must have brought the complaint to the business first and waited for a formal response to that.

“It’s likely that any new complaints about Woodford may still be within the eight weeks for the business to respond.”

Portfolio Adviser reached out to Woodford Investment Management but the firm declined to comment, while Link Fund Solutions failed to respond.

FSCS 

Catherine Goodier, communications executive at the FSCS, said the compensation scheme had been contacted by people who have invested in the fund, asking if they are eligible for FSCS protection.

“We cannot comment on specific firms, but if an authorised provider fails, FSCS may be able to compensate eligible investors for any shortfall in the amount of client money or assets,” she said. “FSCS cannot compensate for bad investment performance.”

She explained that the FSCS provides protection if an authorised investment firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example, for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation and when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money.

“FSCS can also compensate if a firm should have assessed the suitability/appropriateness of an investment for an investor, but failed to properly do so, or if a firm misadvised a customer.”