Partially upheld: pension transfer refusal and procedural delays complaint against The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6184531 of 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00. pension transfer refusal and procedural delays complaint against The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6184531 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited |
| Product | pension |
| Claim type | pension transfer refusal and procedural delays |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Royal London must pay Mrs J £500 in total for distress and inconvenience caused by delays. Royal London had already paid £200 by cheque in March 2025, so must now pay the remaining £300. If no payment has been made, Royal London must pay £500 in full. No financial compensation for lost investment opportunity as Royal London was not at fault for the transfer refusal. |
Summary
Mrs J complained that Royal London incorrectly blocked her pension transfer to a SSAS in 2025, causing financial losses and distress. She intended to invest in a commercial property scheme with limited time available. Royal London refused the transfer, citing that Mrs J lacked a statutory right to transfer as a non-earner and that it would not exercise discretion due to missing scheme rules and vague investment details. The ombudsman found Royal London's refusal was justified under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Regulations, as Mrs J failed to provide adequate evidence of earner status despite repeated requests for bank statements. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint partially, finding Royal London caused unjustified delay between February and April 2025 and ordered £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience, with £300 remaining to be paid.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Royal London correctly applied the Pension Schemes Act 1993 in determining Mrs J had no statutory right to transfer as a non-earner. Mrs J failed to provide adequate evidence of being an earner despite repeated requests for bank statements showing salary deposits. Royal London properly exercised its discretion to refuse the transfer on fair and reasonable grounds, including the failure to provide SSAS scheme rules (a red flag under the Regulations) and vague investment details requiring MoneyHelper guidance (an amber flag). However, Royal London caused unjustified delay between February and April 2025 when it took minimal action beyond handling Mrs J's complaint, causing distress during a critical period when she was under time pressure to secure the commercial property investment.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited, all decisions | 958 | 20% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website