Partially upheld: Pension transfer advice complaint against West Park Investment Partnership Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs F complained that West Park Investment Partnership Limited gave unsuitable advice to transfer her defined benefit pension in 2017 and to invest in the Woodford Fund, failed to manage her transferred pension monies properly, and provided poor customer service. The ombudsman found that complaints about the DB transfer and Woodford Fund investment advice were brought outside the FOS time limits (more than six years after the 2017 events and more than three years after Mrs F ought reasonably to have become aware of cause for complaint in October 2019 when her husband expressed awareness of losses). The DB transfer complaint was additionally barred as the FSCS had already considered the same subject matter. Regarding the timely complaints about portfolio management and customer service, the ombudsman found WP's investment recommendations were suitable to Mrs F's risk profile and that poor performance does not evidence wrongdoing. However, the ombudsman partially upheld the complaint on customer service grounds, finding WP made minor lapses that warranted a written apology, though the high volume of contact from Mr F (111-135 emails annually) and WP's reasonable efforts to respond meant overall service was adequate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied strict time limit rules under DISP 2.8.2R, finding that Mrs F's complaints about DB transfer advice and Woodford Fund investment advice were brought more than six years after the events (2017) and more than three years after she ought reasonably to have become aware of cause for complaint (October 2019, when Mr F's email showed awareness of losses). WP did not consent to late consideration. No exceptional circumstances applied. Additionally, even if timely, the DB transfer complaint should be dismissed under DISP 3.3.4B as the subject matter had already been considered by the FSCS (a comparable dispute resolution scheme). Regarding management of transferred DB pension monies, the ombudsman found WP's ATR assessments were reasonable, recommended investments aligned with ATR, and regular reviews were conducted. Poor performance alone does not evidence wrongdoing, and WP could not have foreseen global/political events. On customer service, while WP made minor lapses (acknowledged by WP itself), the high volume of contact from Mr F (111-135 emails annually) and WP's reasonable efforts to respond meant overall service was adequate, though an apology for minor lapses was warranted.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website