Not upheld: Complaints handling failures complaint against Curtis Banks Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5628416 of 2025-08-05T00:00:00+00:00. Complaints handling failures complaint against Curtis Banks Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5628416 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-08-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Curtis Banks Limited |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | Complaints handling failures |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Curtis Banks Limited has already credited £100 compensation to Mr S's SIPP (£50 for lack of proactivity in chasing fees and £50 for implying Mr S was responsible for payment delays in initial complaint response). No further remedy ordered. |
Summary
Mr S complained that Curtis Banks Limited provided poor service on his SIPP by issuing invoices for 2022 and 2023 in July 2024 and sending an outdated annual valuation dated December 2023 in October 2024. Curtis Banks Limited explained that invoices were issued on time but not paid by the wealth manager until July 2024, and that valuations depended on data provided by the wealth manager. The ombudsman found Curtis Banks Limited acted in accordance with its terms and conditions and regulatory obligations, and that the £100 compensation already credited (£50 for lack of proactivity and £50 for misleading complaint response) was fair and reasonable. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Curtis Banks Limited acted in accordance with its terms and conditions and regulatory obligations. The October 2024 annual statement was reasonable as Curtis Banks Limited was required to provide an annual statement and could only report the valuation information provided by the wealth manager, which it did with a clear date. The delayed invoices were not poor administration as Curtis Banks Limited sent them on time and the wealth manager failed to pay them; Curtis Banks Limited's delayed chasing was sensible to avoid duplicate payments. The £100 compensation already credited was fair and reasonable for the acknowledged lack of proactivity and the misleading initial complaint response.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Curtis Banks Limited, all decisions | 54 | 50% |
| Complaints handling failures, all decisions | 4,445 | 37% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,579 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website