Not upheld: Unclear terms and conditions regarding requirement for additional advice and costs when taking pension benefits; dispute over whether requirement formed part of original agreement complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Advisory Services Limited (HLAS)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6120785 of 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00. Unclear terms and conditions regarding requirement for additional advice and costs when taking pension benefits; dispute over whether requirement formed part of original agreement complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Advisory Services Limited (HLAS). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6120785 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Hargreaves Lansdown Advisory Services Limited (HLAS) |
| Product | pension (SIPP - Self-Invested Personal Pension) |
| Claim type | Unclear terms and conditions regarding requirement for additional advice and costs when taking pension benefits; dispute over whether requirement formed part of original agreement |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy required. The £150 payment already made by HLAS for inconvenience and frustration is deemed fair and sufficient. No requirement for HLAS to cover any costs if Mr F transfers to another provider. |
Summary
Mr F complained that Hargreaves Lansdown Advisory Services Limited unfairly required him to pay for additional financial planning advice (2% fee) to withdraw £12,000 from his Portfolio Management Service SIPP, arguing this requirement was not part of his original agreement and the terms were unclear. HLAS offered an alternative: withdrawing from his standard SIPP without additional charges, which Mr F ultimately used. The ombudsman found HLAS acted fairly because the PMS is an advised service where withdrawals materially impact investment suitability, and Mr F suffered no financial loss or unreasonable inconvenience. The ombudsman upheld HLAS's £150 compensation for inconvenience caused by unclear literature but declined to require additional remedies or changes to HLAS's processes, as these are matters of commercial discretion regulated by the FCA.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that as the PMS is an advised service requiring ongoing advice, it is reasonable for HLAS to require advice when a customer makes changes to their holdings, as withdrawals impact the amount invested and suitability of investments. The terms and conditions permitted HLAS to amend terms and made clear that non-standard services would incur additional fees. The ombudsman noted that Mr F suffered no financial loss as he successfully withdrew funds via the standard SIPP alternative, which involved no unreasonable inconvenience. While acknowledging that HLAS's literature could be clearer, the ombudsman could not require HLAS to change its commercial processes or charging structure, as these are matters of commercial discretion regulated by the FCA, not the FOS.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Hargreaves Lansdown Advisory Services Limited (HLAS), all decisions | 1 | 0% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website