Upheld: ISA / savings administration complaint against JAMES HAY ADMINISTRATION COMPANY LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6158440 of 2026-02-17T00:00:00+00:00. ISA / savings administration complaint against JAMES HAY ADMINISTRATION COMPANY LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6158440 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-02-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | JAMES HAY ADMINISTRATION COMPANY LIMITED |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | ISA / savings administration |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | James Hay must: (1) carry out a loss assessment comparing the current value of Mr P's pension with Provider T to the hypothetical value had the transfer completed on 27 November 2023 (seven working days earlier); (2) pay Mr P 6/7ths (85.71%) of any calculated loss, less amounts already paid (£2,576.84); (3) pay compensation into the pension plan if possible, or as a lump sum with 15% notional tax reduction if not; (4) pay £450 for distress and inconvenience; (5) provide clear calculation details to Mr P. |
Summary
Mr P complained that his SIPP transfer from James Hay to Provider T took too long, causing his funds to remain uninvested for 29 days. The ombudsman examined the transfer timeline against the TRIG industry framework and identified multiple delays caused by James Hay: one day in querying the transfer purpose, three days in instructing the DFM to disinvest, and three days between releasing an income payment and transferring remaining funds to Provider T. While James Hay's decision to pause the transfer for an income payment was not unreasonable, it could have ringfenced that payment and transferred other funds sooner. The ombudsman found James Hay responsible for six of seven total working days of delay and ordered it to pay compensation based on the financial loss Mr P suffered plus £450 for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the TRIG framework as the appropriate industry standard for assessing reasonable transfer timescales, rejecting James Hay's arguments that TRIG was aspirational or superseded. The ombudsman found that while James Hay's decision to pause the transfer pending the income payment was not unreasonable, James Hay could have ringfenced that payment and transferred the remaining funds within two working days. The ombudsman identified specific delays: one day in sending the investment pathway query, three days in sending disinvestment instructions to the DFM, and three days between the income payment and transfer to Provider T. Provider T caused one day delay through incorrect initial information. The ombudsman calculated the total delay as seven working days, with James Hay responsible for six days. The ombudsman rejected James Hay's arguments about increased due diligence requirements for pension scams, noting such guidance predated TRIG.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| JAMES HAY ADMINISTRATION COMPANY LIMITED, all decisions | 9 | 33% |
| ISA / savings administration, all decisions | 1,920 | 26% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,579 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website