Firm hits at 'Which?' report
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A FIRM of investment advisers has claimed that Which? magazine has 'done a Rottweiler job' on it.
Earlier this year Which?, the Consumers' Association magazine, reported that a man had received compensation as a result of poor advice from Knight Williams, a firm of independent financial advisers based in New Bond Street, London.
The firm advertises itself as a retirement specialist.
Which? then received information from 30 Knight Williams customers - only two of whom were happy with the advice that the firm had given.
The complaints focused on Knight Williams's decision allegedly to put elderly investors into high-risk portfolios; not taking sufficient notice of the clients' tax position and advising investors to sell their existing holdings to invest in Knight Williams's investment bonds.
Robin Knight Bruce, chairman of Knight Williams, said: 'If the three cases they cite in the article are the ones they consider the most damaging, then the other 27 must have no case at all.
'That does not mean we don't have any dissatisfied clients. We can't prevent a client investing one day and cashing in on day two,' he added.
All three cases could now be in profit if they had stayed invested. But Which? claimed that the investments were too high-risk and exposed elderly people to worry.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments