Upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Prudential International Assurance Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-4705151 of 2024-04-02T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against Prudential International Assurance Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-4705151 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2024-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Prudential International Assurance Plc |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Prudential must calculate compensation by: (1) assuming funds were invested on 17 January 2022 into the same funds and proportions as actually invested on 11 February 2022; (2) comparing current value with fair value as if invested on 17 January 2022; (3) if fair value exceeds actual value, paying the difference into Mr M's pension; (4) providing clear calculation details to Mr M and his IFA. Fair value calculation must account for additional payments from their actual payment date and withdrawals from their actual withdrawal date. |
Summary
Mr M complained about delays and errors in setting up a pension investment with Prudential International Assurance Plc. Prudential identified a 16 working day delay and offered £500 compensation, but the FOS investigator found an additional 3-day delay related to incorrect beneficial ownership information, totalling 19 days. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, rejecting both Prudential's 16-day calculation and Mr M's alternative timeline that would have reduced the delay period. The remedy requires Prudential to calculate compensation by comparing the current pension value with the fair value assuming investment on 17 January 2022, and pay any shortfall into Mr M's pension. A separate issue regarding £100,000 of disputed transactions was not addressed as it required exhaustion of Prudential's complaint process first.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman identified three distinct causes of delay: delayed provision of illustrations (5 working days), incomplete vetting email missing mandatory SIPP requirements (11 working days), and the incorrectly requested beneficial ownership form (3 working days), totalling 19 working days. Prudential's complaint response only identified 16 days and failed to include the beneficial ownership delay. The ombudsman rejected Mr M's alternative timeline suggesting 5-7 day delays as inconsistent with the errors made and inappropriate as it would allow Mr M to choose an investment date with hindsight to maximise redress. The £500 compensation for distress was deemed appropriate. The separate issue regarding £100,000 of disputed transactions was not addressed as it required Prudential's complaint process to be exhausted first.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Prudential International Assurance Plc, all decisions | 3 | 50% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,206 | 37% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,579 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website