Upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Curtis Banks Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Curtis Banks incorrectly sent pension benefit crystallisation documentation to his former Discretionary Fund Manager (Firm A) in March 2025, despite having ceased using their services in 2016. Curtis Banks initially accepted this was a data breach but later changed their position, claiming they had no written record of Mr C removing Firm A. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Curtis Banks should have queried whether Firm A was still acting for Mr C during the nine-year period from 2016 to 2025, particularly given the 2024 encashment forms did not reference Firm A. The ombudsman awarded £200 compensation for the distress caused, noting that while the technical status of a data breach was unclear, Curtis Banks' failure to make reasonable inquiries was the root cause of the issue.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although there is conflicting information about whether a formal data breach occurred (no evidence on file confirms Mr C notified Curtis Banks of Firm A's removal), it is clear Mr C had no dealings with Firm A since 2016 and did not want them to receive the 2025 documentation. Curtis Banks had opportunities from 2016 onwards to query whether Firm A was still acting for Mr C but failed to do so. Whether or not a technical data breach occurred, Curtis Banks' failure to make this inquiry caused Mr C distress. The complaint is upheld because Curtis Banks should have taken steps to prevent sending documentation to a former adviser with whom Mr C had no contact for nine years.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website