Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Prudential Pensions Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that Prudential mis-sold him an annuity in 1996 by failing to advise him to transfer his personal pension to his employer's occupational pension scheme. He believed he would have received greater pension income through a transfer. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that Prudential had no obligation as a non-independent adviser to recommend alternatives, the transfer was uncertain given the one-year employment contract, and Mr W was alerted to seek independent advice through the Key Features document provided. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr W may have been able to transfer his pension pot to the occupational scheme, this was uncertain given the one-year employment contract and typical scheme rules requiring two years' service. The timing of events was also unclear, with the annuity commencing before the formal job offer. Crucially, Prudential was not an independent financial adviser and had no regulatory obligation to advise on options beyond its own annuity products. Mr W was alerted to the possibility of seeking independent advice through the Key Features document provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website