Not upheld: SIPP administration, property investment management, lead investor process, rent reviews, arrears management, lease assignment complaint against Suffolk Life Pensions Limited (trading as Curtis Banks)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs E, as sole beneficiary of her late husband Mr E's SIPP, complained about various aspects of SL's administration of a syndicated commercial property investment held through the SIPPs of Mr E, Mrs E and Mr Y. The complaints included issues with the lead investor process, rent reviews, arrears management, lease assignment, subletting, and property modifications. The ombudsman found that most of the complaint was either outside the time limits or should be dismissed. For the portions that could be considered on the merits, the ombudsman found that SL had acted fairly and reasonably in continuing to use the lead investor process, managing the property investment, and handling the various issues that arose. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that SL acted fairly and reasonably in continuing to use the lead investor process after April 2017. The syndicate members had agreed to this arrangement by signing the July 2009 Property form. While disagreements arose between syndicate members, this was a foreseeable risk of joint investment that investors should have considered before joining the syndicate. SL took steps to seek input from all syndicate members on key decisions (assignment and subletting) when it disagreed with Mr Y's position that they should not be involved. The failure of Mr E and Mrs E to respond to SL's correspondence did not constitute a failure by SL. SL's handling of the 2015 rent review was reasonable and completed on market terms. The 2020 rent review was appropriately waived once Mr Y was no longer connected to the tenant. SL's management of arrears was reasonable given the practical difficulties of pursuing a dissolved company. The assignment to Firm F was handled appropriately with SL seeking consent from all syndicate members.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website