Upheld: Pension transfer advice complaint against Curtis Banks Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5059095 of 2024-11-04T00:00:00+00:00. Pension transfer advice complaint against Curtis Banks Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5059095 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2024-11-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Curtis Banks Limited |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | Pension transfer advice |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Curtis Banks must: (1) Calculate what Mrs D's pension savings would be worth now had Curtis Banks not caused delays, assuming the same reinvestment approach but earlier timing; (2) If the notional value exceeds the actual value, pay compensation equal to the difference into Mrs D's pension plan (adjusted for charges, tax relief, and notional income tax at basic rate on 75% of the amount); (3) If unable to pay into the pension plan, pay the amount directly to Mrs D with a tax adjustment; (4) Provide a clear, fully explained calculation to Mrs D; (5) Pay Mrs D £500 for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mrs D complained that Curtis Banks unreasonably delayed the transfer of her pension savings to another provider (T) in 2023. Curtis Banks received the transfer request on 19 March 2023 but sent an instruction to the investment manager with an incorrect email address on 29 March, which was not corrected until 28 April. Additionally, Curtis Banks failed to respond promptly to the investment manager's query about conflicting instructions, adding three days of delay. The transfer was ultimately completed on 9 June 2023, approximately 38 days later than it should have been. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Curtis Banks responsible for specific delays, and directed it to calculate any financial loss to Mrs D using a specified methodology and to pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman identified that Curtis Banks was responsible for specific delays: (1) sending an instruction with an incorrect email address on 29 March, which was not corrected until 28 April (approximately one month delay), and (2) failing to respond in reasonable time to the investment manager's query about conflicting instructions (three days delay). The ombudsman considered that a ten-day processing period from receipt of transfer request to sending instruction to the investment manager was reasonable given normal industry practice and tax year pressures. The ombudsman determined that Curtis Banks should not be held responsible for delays caused by the investment manager or other parties. The ombudsman concluded that Curtis Banks should calculate whether Mrs D suffered financial loss using a methodology that assumes the same reinvestment approach but with earlier timing, and should pay £500 for distress and inconvenience.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Curtis Banks Limited, all decisions | 54 | 50% |
| Pension transfer advice, all decisions | 7,542 | 54% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,579 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website