Not upheld: pension transfer advice fees - dispute over liability to pay complaint against Harbour Rock Capital Limited (HRC) / Portafina

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that HRC should not be entitled to charge £11,364.25 (later recalculated to £9,481.65) for pension transfer advice, arguing that delays by HRC and the DB scheme caused his pension fund to reduce by approximately £66,000 from the original CETV of £197,285 to £131,380 (later uplifted to £159,633). Mr E had initially received abridged advice recommending he remain in his DB scheme but proceeded as an insistent client to transfer despite HRC's recommendation. HRC's terms of business and multiple communications clearly stated that the full advice fee would be charged regardless of whether transfer was recommended or proceeded with. The ombudsman found that HRC had properly disclosed the fee, Mr E had agreed to pay it, and the fee was correctly calculated according to the tiered scale in HRC's terms of business. The ombudsman could not consider Mr E's complaint about HRC's handling of the transfer and alleged delay because it was referred more than six months after HRC's final response letter, exceeding the statutory time limit. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HRC's terms of business clearly stated that full pension transfer advice would be charged regardless of whether the advice recommended transfer or not. Mr E was informed multiple times of the fee amount (£11,364.25) before agreeing to proceed with full advice, and he signed declarations confirming his understanding and agreement to pay. The fee was calculated on a tiered scale (7% for first £50,000, 6% for £50,001-£100,000, 5% for balance) as set out in the TOB. When the original CETV expired, HRC correctly recalculated the fee based on the actual uplifted CETV of £159,633 (£9,481.65), which was fair and in accordance with the TOB. Although Mr E terminated HRC's services in February 2023, this was at the end of the process after HRC had completed substantially all its work. The ombudsman could not consider Mr E's complaint about HRC's alleged delay in processing the transfer because it was referred more than six months after HRC's final response letter of 13 December 2022, exceeding the statutory time limit.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website