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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained that WP gave unsuitable advice to transfer two DB pensions (via Firm J), invested transferred pension monies unsuitably in Woodford Fund, provided poor customer service, and gave unsuitable small pots pension advice. WP was not authorised for DB advice and referred Mr F to Firm J, though WP provided supporting communications. The Woodford Fund suspended in June 2019 and wound up in October 2019, causing Mr F losses. FSCS determined Firm J's DB transfer advice was unsuitable but Mr F made overall gains. FOS found Mr F's complaints about DB transfers and Woodford Fund investments were brought outside time limits and lacked jurisdiction to consider them. On remaining complaints within jurisdiction, FOS found WP's investment management and small pots advice were suitable, but upheld the complaint partially due to minor customer service lapses, ordering WP to apologise.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied DISP time limit rules and found Mr F's complaints about DB transfer advice and Woodford Fund investment advice were brought outside the six-year and three-year time limits. Mr F ought reasonably to have been aware of cause for complaint by October 2019 when he knew of Woodford Fund losses and stated he should not have transferred from DB schemes. No exceptional circumstances applied. Even if in time, the DB transfer complaint should be dismissed as the subject matter was already considered by FSCS. On the merits of remaining complaints, WP's ATR assessments were reasonable, investment recommendations aligned with ATR, and management of portfolio was appropriate given medium-to-long term nature of pension investing and unforeseeable global events. Small pots advice was suitable given Mr F's circumstances and objectives. Minor lapses in customer service occurred but caused no material detriment, though an apology is warranted.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website