Customers are not getting the quality of advice they should expect when visiting their bank or building society, according to a report by the City regulator the FSA. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has published the results of a mystery shopping exercise it carried out last year into the quality of investment advice given by the major banks and building societies. It showed that in twenty five percent of cases the advice given was not suitable and exposed the customers to risks far greater than they were willing to take. In response to the report, Michelle Barrett of Credit Claims in Bolton, a leading financial claims company commented: ''These findings come as no surprise to us. We deal on a daily basis with people who have trusted the banks to give them the best advice, only to find out years later that the product recommended carried a far greater risk than had been explained" The report says the main failings were in relation to: < The level of risk not being properly explored < Customers financial circumstances not considered properly e.g. advisers failing to recommend the repayment of expensive debt like credit cards, before investing any money < Advisers failing to assess properly the length of time customers wanted to tie their money up for The report includes examples of the sort of advice the mystery shoppers were given. In one example the adviser stated that the customer would `always get a return` and proceeded to write down the amount the customer `could` get back. In another example of poor advice, the adviser asks the customer to choose from three options, which level of risk he wanted to take, and simply accepted the category chosen by the customer without any further discussion. The adviser then went on to recommend investment funds to match the selected risk category. ''It is unacceptable for a professional financial adviser to simply hand a piece of literature over to a customer and ask them to choose which risk category they fit into, without a detailed discussion about what that level of risk really involves. The FSA report shows how some advisers rely upon sales aids to explain risk to clients. What needs to take place is a full and frank discussion about how they would feel if they lost a certain amount of money and how that would impact on their lifestyle'' said Michelle Barrett. The banks have agreed to take remedial action by retraining advisers and reviewing past sales but it has been reported that one of the big banks could face a heavy fine. The BBC reported that the advice given by Santander was so poor that it was likely to be punished with a considerable fine by the FSA. One example of a mis sold ISA by Santander involved Arthur and David Sandiford from Bolton. The brothers had saved all their working lives in standard bank deposit accounts only to be persuaded by the bank that they could get a better return by investing the money into ISA`s. ''We made it clear that we were not risk takers but the adviser insisted that it was the best thing for us. She took £7000 each of us and at the end of the term we got back less than we had put in" said Arthur Sandiford. "When we investigated this particular case we found that Arthur and David had been classified as ''speculative'' investors. This is the highest level of risk, and how the adviser could possibly come to that conclusion is beyond me. We were able to secure the Sandiford twins a payout of over £24,000 after Santander admitted the advice was not suitable. This was a typical example of the customers financial circumstances and attitude to risk not being properly considered" said Michelle Barrett. In January of this year new rules were put in place by the FSA to further regulate the sale of investment products including an end to commission payments and new qualifications for financial advisers.