Not upheld: pension transfer advice - alleged withholding of information about receiving scheme provider restrictions complaint against Grove Pension Solutions Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5814673 of 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00. pension transfer advice - alleged withholding of information about receiving scheme provider restrictions complaint against Grove Pension Solutions Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5814673 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Grove Pension Solutions Limited |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | pension transfer advice - alleged withholding of information about receiving scheme provider restrictions |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr R complained that Grove Pension Solutions withheld key information during the abridged advice stage regarding his DB pension transfer, specifically that his existing SIPP provider would not accept insistent clients. Mr R claimed this information should have been disclosed before he agreed to pay for full advice. Grove provided abridged advice in November 2023 with an inconclusive outcome, then full advice in June 2024 recommending against transfer. When Mr R proceeded as an insistent client in July 2024, Grove informed him his existing SIPP provider would not accept the transfer. The ombudsman found Grove was not required to disclose this information at the abridged stage due to regulatory restrictions on what can be considered, and that Mr R's subsequent actions suggested consolidating his pension was not his primary objective, so he would have proceeded to full advice regardless.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Grove was not in a position to know at the abridged advice stage that a transfer would definitely not be in Mr R's best interest, as key factors such as the transfer value comparator and critical yield could only be calculated during full advice. The rules around abridged advice specifically prohibit advisers from considering the proposed receiving scheme at that stage. Additionally, Grove could not reasonably have assumed Mr R would act as an insistent client before completing full advice. The ombudsman noted that Mr R's subsequent actions (not immediately objecting to Firm S, only later querying charges) suggested consolidating with his existing SIPP was not his primary objective. The Guide to Abridged Advice document provided upfront information that not all providers accept insistent clients.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Grove Pension Solutions Limited, all decisions | 45 | 42% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,409 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website