Not upheld: pension transfer advice - alleged misleading reassurances about CETV values and advice to delay transfer complaint against WPS Advisory Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that WPS Advisory Ltd gave him misleading reassurances during DB pension transfer advice in 2022, causing him to delay the transfer and resulting in a significant financial loss when the CETV fell from £1,053,000 to £433,450. Mr C claimed WPS advised him to delay, reassured him that CETVs would rise, and failed to warn about interest rate risks. WPS maintained it had recommended the transfer but Mr C chose to wait due to the war in Ukraine, and that it had explained transfer values fluctuate based on market factors. The ombudsman found WPS did not advise delay but accepted Mr C's decision to wait, did not give categorical assurances about future CETV values, and appropriately focused on transfer suitability under regulatory requirements. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that WPS's role was to advise on suitability, not simply to transact what Mr C wanted. The regulatory starting assumption is that DB transfers are unsuitable. WPS did not advise Mr C to delay but accepted his decision to wait due to the war in Ukraine. While Mr C felt reassured by WPS's comments about transfer values, WPS did not give categorical assurances that values would remain the same or rise by 50%. WPS explained that transfer values fluctuate based on interest rates and gilt yields. Mr C understood transfer values change, as evidenced by his own concerns about the CETV having peaked and his suitability report stating future values could be higher or lower. The ombudsman rejected Mr C's argument that WPS framed waiting as a safe option with no downsides, finding instead that WPS's comments were made in the context of assessing suitability for transferring DB benefits. A fall in transfer value does not mean a fall in the worth of DB scheme benefits, which remain guaranteed and index-linked.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website