Approved Minimum Retirement Fund AMRF Decision Reference 2025-0148

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0148
• Date: 16 October 2025
• Subject Matter: Approved Minimum Retirement Fund AMRF
• Finantial Sector: Investment
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to provide correct information,Delayed or inadequate communication, Dissatisfaction with general customer service, Failure to process instructions

Decision Ref:

2025-0148

Sector:

Investment

Product / Service:

Approved Minimum Retirement Fund AMRF

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to provide correct information

Delayed or inadequate communication

Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Failure to process instructions

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

The complaint concerns an investment policy, an Approved Retirement Fund (ARF), set up

through a third-party broker, who negotiated the ARF between the Complainant and the

Provider.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant states that on commencement of his ARF policy in May 2017, his pension

funds were to be placed in a client cash account. The Complainant further states that the

funds were not to be invested, no fees were to be charged, and no advisor was appointed

until the negotiations between the broker, and the Complainant were completed. The

Complainant contends that the imputed distributions required by the Revenue authorities

were to be calculated and paid at no extra cost to the fund by the Provider and that a year-

end statement was to be prepared at no additional cost. The Complainant further

contends that any payments to be made from the fund were to be made from the fund

“profits only” and all transactional information was to be expressed in euro only.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainant asserts that he refuses to accept terms, fees and charges offered by the

Provider and that his funds were to be placed in an escrow account until a written

agreement was negotiated. The Complainant further asserts that the Provider refused to

engage with him and did not follow the instructions he had issued.

The Complainant argues that his instructions were to secure his pension funds from

lockdown, and for his funds to be lodged in an escrow client cash account.

He says that the broker placed the funds with the Provider on a contract which he did not

sign and refused to lodge the funds in an escrow account as instructed. The Complainant

says that the Provider paid commissions without communicating with him. He submits that

he tried to replace the broker but was prevented from doing so by the Provider, until

another agent was appointed.

The Complainant is dissatisfied with the answers he has received from the Provider. The

Complainant asserts that he raised a series of questions which remain unanswered. He

also requests a comprehensive list of documentation on the Provider's files to access the

facts of what happened to his pension funds. The Complainant submits that the Provider

paid out a vast amount of his money resulting in serious consequences for his pension

funds. The Complainant asserts that the file submitted in evidence by the Provider is

incomplete. The Complainant argues that his pension funds are inaccessible to him.

The Complainant wants the Provider to reimburse his pension fund losses due to the fact

that his instruction to invest the fund in a cash account, was not carried out and that fees

and charges were applied to the fund.

The Provider’s Case

The Provider submits that an application form was received on 28 March 2017 for an

Approved Retirement Fund (ARF) product. It submits that its cash fund was selected on the

proposal form which was signed by the Complainant and his broker. It states that the ARF

commenced with effect from 12 May 2017 with an investment amount of €349,695.30

(three hundred and forty-nine thousand, six hundred and ninety-five euro and thirty cent).

The Provider says that 100% of the premium was used to purchase units in the cash fund

on the ruling bid price from 15 May 2017. It submits that the units were purchased, using

the unit price of the working day following receipt of the premium, in line with the terms

and conditions of the policy document.