Claims Against True Potential Wealth Management:
What Do You Need to Know?

Concerns have been raised about historic transfers into True Potential products, particularly when clients moved after receiving a direct offer and after speaking to an adviser they already knew. In some complaints, True Potential said the transfer was ‘non-advised’, while clients argued that advice had been given.

In September 2025, it was reported that True Potential Wealth Management LLP moved from a £9.9 million operating profit in 2023 to a £243.3 million operating loss in 2024. The shift was blamed on ‘exceptional costs’ linked to the FCA’s decision to order a Section 166 Skilled Person Review. True Potential had to set aside around £100 million for potential redress relating to client suitability concerns.

Not every complaint against True Potential succeeds, but published cases point to some recurring issues.

1. A transfer was described as ‘non-advised’, but advice may still have been given

One of the main issues in successful complaints is whether the transaction was really non-advised. In the Ombudsman decision involving Mr C, the client moved from a Prudential pension into a True Potential fund after discussions with his adviser, who had recently joined the firm. True Potential said the transfer was non-advised, but the Ombudsman found that advice had been given and that the switch was unsuitable. Compensation was awarded.

The paperwork does not always tell the whole story. What matters is what was said to the client, what recommendation was made, and what role the adviser played in bringing about the transfer.

2. The adviser was involved in arranging the transfer

The same Ombudsman decision looked at the adviser’s role in the transfer process. The evidence included the adviser activating an online client portal and later submitting the application on the client’s behalf using the client’s login details. That formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment that this was more than a non-advised sale.

This sort of involvement may matter in other cases, too; where an adviser has done more than provide product information, there may be a stronger argument that regulated advice was given.

3. The switch was not suitable for the client’s circumstances

Suitability remains central to any complaint of this kind. In Mr C’s case, the Ombudsman concluded that moving from the Prudential fund to the True Potential fund was unsuitable and directed True Potential to restore him, so far as possible, to the position he would likely have been in if the transfer had not happened.

It is worth remembering that not every transfer into a True Potential product is unsuitable. There are also published decisions in which complaints against True Potential were not upheld.

4. Commission may raise questions about conflicts of interest

We have previously covered the reported 8% commissions linked to some adviser moves and client transfers. Not every transfer was unsuitable, and we are not aware of a reported case in which a client recovered the commission alone while the transfer itself was otherwise suitable. However, commission may still be relevant when looking at whether a recommendation was genuinely in the client’s best interests.

5. Existing arrangements should have been properly compared

Another point that can arise in complaints is whether the client’s existing pension or investment was properly compared with the recommended True Potential product, including risk, charges, features and likely outcomes. That will often be an important part of deciding whether the recommendation was suitable.

Not necessarily. The existence of a redress scheme does not automatically mean every client will receive everything they may be entitled to, or that every possible complaint has already been dealt with. The published decisions and continued reporting suggest that some clients may still want advice on whether they have grounds for a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service or another route to recover losses.

If you are not sure where you stand, you may want to seek advice if:

• You moved a pension or investment into a True Potential product following discussions with an adviser.
• The transfer was described as non-advised, but the adviser recommended the move or helped to arrange it.
• You were not given a clear suitability report or a proper explanation of the risks.
• The new arrangement involved higher risk, higher charges or worse performance.
• You believe the commission may have influenced the recommendation.
• You suffered financial loss after the transfer.

Sarah Spruce, Legal Director and Head of the Professional Negligence team at TLW Solicitors, says:

“Clients have the right to expect that any pension or investment recommendation is suitable, properly documented, and made in their best interests.

The published complaints involving True Potential show that these cases often depend on the details of what was said, how the transfer was presented, and whether the adviser’s involvement went beyond simply passing on information.

Where a client has lost money after a transfer, it is important to look carefully at whether there may be grounds for a complaint or claim.

If you or a loved one are concerned that you may have lost out financially following a transfer to True Potential Wealth Management, then please contact us for a free, confidential and no obligation discussion to explore your options.”