**The facts you describe do not, by themselves, establish illegal or unethical conduct.** Being over 70, investing in stock-market funds, paying a 1% fee and receiving advice without family involvement can all be legitimate. The key questions are whether the investments suited your relative’s circumstances and whether they could understand and authorise the decisions at the time.

The date of the advice matters: a complaint must be assessed against the rules applicable then. The financial-services rules broadly apply across the UK, but mental-capacity law differs between its nations.

**What the adviser needed to consider**

An adviser must assess the client’s financial circumstances, investment objectives, knowledge and experience, attitude to risk and ability to withstand losses. Relevant considerations include:

- How much of their savings was invested.
- Whether they needed that money soon for living expenses or care.
- Whether their pension and other resources could support them during a market downturn.
- Whether they understood the investment risks and charges.

Stock-market funds can be suitable for an older person with sufficient resources and a longer investment horizon. They could be unsuitable for someone needing most of the money shortly or unable to absorb losses. The Financial Ombudsman assesses these circumstances individually; age alone does not determine suitability. [Financial Ombudsman’s approach to investment suitability](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/complaints-deal/investments/assessing-suitability-investments).

**Dementia and family involvement**

In England and Wales, capacity concerns the **particular decision at the particular time**. The person must be able to understand the relevant information, retain it long enough, weigh the options and communicate a decision. A later dementia diagnosis does not automatically prove that they lacked capacity when the investments were arranged; even someone already diagnosed may retain capacity for some decisions. [Government guidance on checking capacity](https://www.gov.uk/make-decisions-for-someone/assessing-mental-capacity).

There is **no general requirement to obtain family approval** merely because a client is elderly. Family relationship alone does not confer authority over someone’s finances, and advisers must respect confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

However, firms should identify and respond to vulnerability. If an adviser had doubts about your relative’s understanding or capacity, proceeding without addressing those doubts would be concerning. Appropriate support might include clearer explanations, more time, involving a trusted person where lawful, or establishing a legally authorised representative. The FCA specifically addresses dementia, third-party support and doubts about understanding in its [vulnerable-customer guidance, paragraphs 4.50–4.54](https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg21-1.pdf).

**The 1% fee**

A percentage fee is permitted and is not inherently unethical. It should have been clearly disclosed and agreed. If it was an annual adviser fee, investigate what ongoing service was promised and actually delivered. Also establish whether fund, platform or management charges were additional to that 1%. [FCA adviser-charging rules](https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/adviser-charging-rules).

**What to do now**

With your relative’s valid authorisation—or through an appropriately authorised attorney or other representative—request:

- The original fact-find, risk assessment and suitability report.
- Meeting notes and records of any concerns about health, understanding or vulnerability.
- The fee agreement, full cost breakdown and records of ongoing reviews.

Compare those records with your relative’s circumstances and any evidence of cognitive difficulties **when the advice was given**. Notify the firm of the current diagnosis and support needs as well.

If the evidence suggests unsuitable advice, ignored warning signs or charges for services not provided, submit a written complaint to the firm. You can generally approach the **Financial Ombudsman Service free of charge** after an unsatisfactory final response or eight weeks without one. Referral is normally required within six months of the final response; separate limits generally involve six years from the event or, if later, three years from when the customer knew or reasonably should have known they had cause to complain. [Ombudsman time limits](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/expect/time-limits).

On the information available, the strongest grounds for investigation are suitability, understanding and the service delivered—not the absence of family consultation alone.