Not upheld: unsuitable advice and charging for mandatory financial advice complaint against The Prudential Assurance Company Limited / Prudential Financial Planning Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Prudential charged him £2,000 for financial advice he believed would be free and that the advice was unsuitable. He wanted to access his pension to purchase a property abroad. Prudential explained that legislation required him to obtain paid financial advice before accessing his pension benefits, which had safeguarded benefits and exceeded £30,000. Mr H first complained in 2017 but did not refer the matter to FOS until January 2026. The ombudsman rejected the complaint as out of time under the 6-month referral deadline and found that even if timely, the complaint would likely fail as Mr H clearly intended to access his funds regardless of the advice provided.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied DISP rule 2.8.2, which prevents consideration of complaints raised more than 6 months after the firm's final response. Mr H's fee complaint was first raised in 2017 and should have been brought to FOS by 21 January 2018, but was not raised until 20 January 2026. Regarding the suitability of advice, the ombudsman found that Mr H clearly intended to access his pension funds regardless of the advice given, and that Prudential's requirement for paid advice was mandated by legislation. The ombudsman concluded that even if the fee complaint had been timely, it would likely have been unsuccessful as legislation required the advice and an initial unpaid meeting would not have allowed Mr H to access his funds.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website