Partially upheld: misleading information about pension transfer timescales; failure to disclose that transfer could complete more quickly than stated timeframe complaint against Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Aviva gave him misleading information about pension transfer timescales, stating it would take three to six weeks when it actually completed in less than a week, causing him financial loss due to market timing. Mr S had delayed the transfer for two months while monitoring market conditions and had explicitly told Aviva that timing was important to him. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that Aviva should have disclosed that the transfer could happen more quickly than its general timeframe, and ordered £200 compensation for distress. However, the ombudsman rejected compensation for the claimed £4,000 financial loss, as Mr S could not have controlled the exact transfer timing even with fuller information, and future market movements cannot be predicted with certainty.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Aviva's statement that transfers 'can' take three to six weeks was not definitive and did not imply a minimum timeframe, Aviva should have additionally informed Mr S that the transfer could happen more quickly than this general timeframe. This was particularly important given that Mr S had explicitly told Aviva that timing and valuation were important to his decision-making. The ombudsman considered the TRIG framework (which Aviva should have been aware of given FCA endorsement) and concluded that Aviva's omission to mention faster completion was an error that caused distress. However, the ombudsman rejected the claim for financial loss compensation because: (1) Mr S could not have controlled the exact transfer timing even with fuller information; (2) future market movements cannot be predicted with certainty; (3) Aviva made clear it could not specify when transfer value would be taken; and (4) Aviva's processing followed industry standards and was not unfair or unreasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website