Upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Nucleus Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6359315 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against Nucleus Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6359315 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nucleus Financial Services Limited |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | Other regulated complaint |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Nucleus Financial Services Limited is required to: (1) Calculate compensation based on the assumption that cash proceeds would have been sent to Rathbones on 2 July 2024 and received on 4 July 2024, with sales completed at similar intervals within the window of 24 June to 1 July 2024; (2) Assume the amount held back for fees was the actual amount Mrs P needed to pay in fees until re-registrations completed; (3) Obtain the notional value of the pension from Rathbones based on investment from 4 July 2024 in the same way as actually happened; (4) Calculate the difference between this notional value and the current value of Mrs P's Rathbones pension; (5) If the notional value is higher, pay the difference as an extra transfer value to Rathbones if possible, or into Mrs P's pension with allowance for charges and tax relief, or directly to Mrs P with a notional reduction for basic rate income tax (or 15% if tax-free cash not yet taken); (6) Pay £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed cash transfer. |
Summary
Mrs P requested a pension transfer from Nucleus to Rathbones on 12 June 2024, with instructions to re-register some holdings and sell others to cash. Nucleus adopted a process of withholding the cash transfer until all re-registrations were complete, which resulted in a nearly four-month delay when one holding (WS Amati UK Listed Smaller Companies B Acc) was delayed by its fund manager. The cash proceeds of £58,091.20 were not sent until 30 September 2024, causing Mrs P to lose approximately £952 in potential investment gains. The ombudsman found that Nucleus breached its regulatory obligations and good industry practice by not processing the cash transfer in parallel with the re-registrations, and that while the fund manager's delay was a legitimate 'stop the clock' event, it did not justify delaying the cash transfer which Nucleus could have processed independently. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Nucleus to calculate and pay compensation based on the notional value Mrs P would have achieved had the cash been transferred by 4 July 2024, plus £150 for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Nucleus breached its obligation to give effect to Mrs P's transfer instructions efficiently and within a reasonable time under COBS 6.1H.4R(1). The decision to withhold the cash transfer until all re-registrations were complete was not justified by regulatory requirements and contradicted good industry practice as set out in the TRIG framework, which Nucleus itself endorsed through STAR membership. While the fund manager's delay was a 'stop the clock' event under TRIG, this only applied to that specific re-registration and did not justify delaying the cash transfer, which Nucleus was capable of processing independently. The ombudsman rejected Nucleus' arguments that its process was necessary or standard, noting that Nucleus had shown flexibility in other circumstances and that the risk of unit value mismatches was overstated. The ombudsman concluded that Nucleus should have either processed the cash transfer first or adapted its process once the delay became substantial and excessive.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Nucleus Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 14 | 21% |
| Other regulated complaint, all decisions | 18,992 | 19% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,621 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website