Not upheld: Pension transfer advice complaint against Westminster Wealth Management LLP

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service about advice received from Westminster Wealth Management LLP in January 2015 to transfer his final salary occupational pension scheme benefits (worth approximately £95,000 CETV, offering £2,900-£3,000 annual pension) into a personal pension policy. Mr A claimed he was pressured into the transfer, felt rushed, and was told it was his only option. An adjudicator initially upheld the complaint, finding the transfer unsuitable, but the ombudsman disagreed upon independent review. The ombudsman found the advice suitable because the critical yield rates (5.6-7.1%) were within reasonable FCA guidance ranges, the suitability report clearly explained the material factors and trade-offs, Mr A had substantial other pension and property assets making the OPS a small part of his overall provision, and his prior pension trustee experience meant he could appreciate the key considerations. The evidence did not support claims of undue pressure, and the adviser's communications offered to clarify any unclear matters.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the transfer advice suitable because: (1) the critical yield rates of 5.6-7.1%, while significant, were within the range of reasonable growth rates at the time per FCA guidance; (2) the suitability report clearly set out material factors including the guaranteed benefits being given up, the need for investment performance to match those benefits, and the advantages of flexibility and control; (3) Mr A had considerable other pension and property assets, so the OPS represented less than one-third of his accumulated pension funds and he was not materially reliant on it; (4) Mr A's prior experience as a pension trustee, combined with the detailed written explanations provided, meant he could likely appreciate the material factors affecting the choice between guaranteed defined benefit and money purchase arrangements; (5) the evidence did not support Mr A's claims of being pressured or told transfer was his only option - the adviser's emails offered to explain any unclear matters and recommended Mr A not proceed if unsatisfied; (6) the transfer was attractive given the significant CETV enhancement being offered and Mr A's concerns about the scheme's deficit and security; (7) Mr A's desire for flexibility to access benefits from age 55 was a legitimate consideration supporting the transfer.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website