Not upheld: delays in pension transfer advice process and inadequate support with complaint against third party complaint against Pension Works Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Pension Works caused unnecessary delays in its DB pension transfer advice process, resulting in him missing the 10 November 2020 deadline for a CETV worth £1,228,517.73, and that a subsequently obtained CETV was approximately £160,000 lower. He also complained that Pension Works failed to adequately support him in his complaint against Firm W. The ombudsman found that Pension Works promptly began gathering information after being referred Mr E on 23 September 2020, but Mr E did not provide all requested information until 6 November 2020, leaving only four days before the deadline. The ombudsman concluded that DB transfer advice is complex and tightly regulated, requiring consideration of all financial circumstances, and that it was unreasonable to expect completion in four days. The ombudsman also found that Pension Works was not obliged to continue assisting with Mr E's complaint against another firm. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although Firm B referred Mr E to Pension Works with only one month remaining of the CETV's guaranteed period, Pension Works promptly began gathering information and scheduled a fact-finding meeting for 26 October 2020. Mr E did not provide the last requested information until 6 November 2020, leaving only four days (including only two working days) before the deadline. The ombudsman concluded that Pension Works was required to gather and consider all of Mr E's financial circumstances before providing DB transfer advice, and that it was reasonable to require Mr E's approval of the fact-finding notes. DB transfer advice is complex and tightly regulated, and the ombudsman found it unreasonable to expect Pension Works to complete this in four days. The request for a CETV extension was made but refused by Firm W, and there was no evidence this refusal was due to any error by Pension Works. Regarding support for the Firm W complaint, Pension Works was not obliged to continue assisting with a complaint against another firm, and Mr E could have raised a complaint about Pension Works at any earlier point.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website