Not upheld: Pension transfer advice complaint against Grove Pension Solutions Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs T complained about advice from GPSL regarding the transfer of two DB pension schemes to a SIPP in 2018-2019. GPSL initially recommended against the transfer, explaining that it was financially unsuitable and that Mrs T would likely have lower retirement benefits. However, Mrs T, who had recently suffered serious life-threatening health conditions, insisted on proceeding because she wanted to ensure the full value of her funds could pass tax-free to her beneficiaries. GPSL treated her as an insistent client, reiterating its recommendation multiple times in writing and by phone before producing a second suitability report and obtaining her signed acknowledgement. The ombudsman found that GPSL had properly followed the insistent client guidance, clearly communicated the unsuitability of the transfer, and that Mrs T had sufficient financial knowledge from her career in financial services to make an informed decision. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that GPSL clearly and repeatedly advised Mrs T not to transfer, explaining in detail why the transfer was financially unsuitable. Mrs T, despite this advice and after taking approximately one month to consider her circumstances and discuss with her husband, unilaterally insisted on proceeding due to her serious health concerns and desire to ensure full death benefits passed to beneficiaries. GPSL appropriately treated her as an insistent client by reiterating its recommendation multiple times in writing and verbally, producing a second suitability report, and obtaining her signed acknowledgement. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs T had sufficient financial knowledge from her career in financial services to understand the implications, was supported by family members, and made an informed decision to override the adviser's recommendation based on her personal health circumstances rather than financial considerations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website