Only after receiving the final…
Only after receiving the final documents directly from the bank/financial institution did I realise there were significant discrepancies between what I had been told verbally, what was documented by the broker, and the actual legal and financial position of the transaction.
What concerned me the most was the absence of several pieces of mandatory documentation that, under FCA standards, should have been prepared, shared, and retained as part of a proper advisory process. This raises serious questions about whether the required KYC, Suitability and documentation steps were carried out to the standards expected of a regulated advice network.
This entire experience has forced me to learn far more than any client should ever have to — dissecting every document line-by-line, uncovering inconsistencies, and understanding how the advisory process works behind the scenes. I never expected to find myself in a position where I had to double-check and verify the accuracy of my adviser’s work. I genuinely believed financial advisers were professionals you could trust — which makes this situation not only disappointing, but deeply concerning.
I have already submitted a formal complaint and am awaiting a full explanation. Based on what I have seen so far, the process did not resemble what clients should reasonably expect from a regulated broker network.
If anyone else has used a broker connected to Primis and has doubts about the accuracy or completeness of their documentation (e.g. Suitability Letter, Client Needs Analysis, Research & Recommendation Notes), I am happy to point out what to look for when identifying potential inconsistencies or missing information. I have gone through this process myself, and I know how difficult it can be to understand what should have been provided.