Approved Minimum Retirement Fund AMRF Decision Reference 2025-0149

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0149
• Date: 16 October 2025
• Subject Matter: Approved Minimum Retirement Fund AMRF
• Finantial Sector: Investment
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to process instructions,Delayed or inadequate communication, Dissatisfaction with general customer service, Fees & charges applied

Decision Ref:

2025-0149

Sector:

Investment

Product / Service:

Approved Minimum Retirement Fund AMRF

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to process instructions

Delayed or inadequate communication

Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Fees & charges applied

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

The complaint concerns a Retirement Annuity Contract (RAC), an insurance contract

approved by the Revenue, and the advice given in respect of the options available as a

result of the provisions of the Finance Act 2016 and its implications on the treatment of

RACs when the contract owner reaches their 75th birthday. As a result of this legislation,

an RAC becomes vested on the date that the contract owner attains the age of 75 (or

vested on 25 December 2016 if the contract owner was aged 75 prior to that date).

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant states that he contacted the Provider on 31 March 2017 in relation to a

benefit crystallisation event (or BCE) for individuals turning 75 after December 2016 and

the implications for his pension benefits as a result of changes to legislation.

The Complainant further states that he attempted to deal with the Provider but to no

avail, and that its representative, A, produced a folder with a third party’s terms and

conditions for a pension arrangement. The Complainant submits that he instructed the

Provider that he was “not interested” in this product and to place the funds in a euro client

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

cash account. The Complainant further submits that it was agreed that his pension fund

proceeds would not be invested until “all outstanding issues” were agreed in writing.

The Complainant says that following a phone call on 29 May 2017 between himself and

the Provider, certain actions agreed were as follows:

• annual 5% regular withdrawals;

• fees per paragraph 3 of the Provider’s correspondence of 29 May 2017;

• special fund management fees agreed in writing post discussion;

• a secure confidential dedicated access barcode to the fund; and

• no other fees or charges to be applied to the fund.

The Complainant says that an end of year statement subsequently received in May 2018

confirmed that the pension fund had been invested without his agreement and despite the

fact that he was still in negotiations with the Provider in relation to the terms and

conditions. The Complainant further asserts that the fund had now been reduced by circa

€50,000.00 (fifty thousand euro), this being without the 5% penalty fee which, taken into

account, gives a total reduction of €67,500.00 (sixty-seven thousand euro).

The Complainant states that he is unhappy with the Provider’s negotiations and poor

communication throughout the entire process. He says that A had a conflict of interest in

the transaction in relation to fees. He further submits that the contract with the third-

party insurance undertaking was forged, and he refers to €311,617.00 (three hundred and

eleven thousand, six hundred and seventeen euro) rather than €349,695.00 (three

hundred and forty-nine thousand, six hundred and ninety-five euro).

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

lockdown and that the funds were to be lodged in a euro client cash account. He states

that the RAC administrator placed the funds with the Provider/insurance undertaking on a

forged contract and the Provider/insurance undertaking refused to lodge the funds in

escrow, as instructed. He further submits that the insurance undertaking paid commissions

to the Provider without communicating with him.

The Complainant says that his pension funds are inaccessible, and he is no longer able to

work due to the risk of COVID-19 infection which he would present to his wife who has

underlying health conditions.

The Complainant wants the Provider to:

• Reimburse fund losses; and

• Refund charges, fees penalties and payments made from the fund.

- 3 -

/Cont’d…

• The Provider’s Case

The Provider submits that the Finance Act 2016 made changes to the treatment of

retirement annuity contracts (RACs) where an individual is going to pass or has passed

their 75th birthday. It submits that an RAC becomes vested on the date that the owner

attains the age of 75.

The Provider submits that the information provided to it from the Complainant indicated

that his pension scheme was an RAC scheme which was due to vest. A letter from the RAC

administrator dated 22 March 2017, set out a date of Friday 31 March 2017 as a closing

date to complete to convert from the scheme to an Approved Retirement Fund (ARF) or

take taxable cash. It submits that that the proposed transaction to an ARF, after receipt of

the tax-free cash was the focus of its engagement with the Complainant. It submits that

the Complainant approached it to assist him as a matter of urgency, in these

circumstances.

The Provider submits that the Complainant approached it in relation to his pension

requirements on Monday 27 March 2017. It submits that he engaged with and held

meetings with A, a life adviser, on 27 and 28 March 2017. The Provider argues that A

provided the Complainant with its Terms of Business at the 28 March 2017 meeting and

recommended that his funds be placed with a third-party insurance undertaking, in an

ARF.

The Provider submits that the Complainant phoned A on 29 March 2017 and advised he

had decided not to go ahead with the transaction because he had changed his mind and

wanted to invest the funds in his son's business. Having subsequently discussed this with

his accountant, however, the Provider submits that the Complainant approached it again

and initiated contact with A on 24 April 2017, explaining that he had exercised his cooling

off rights with the RAC administrator having given it instructions to mature his pension.

The Provider asserts that the Complainant stated that he had received his tax-free lump

sum and now wished to proceed with the Approved Retirement Fund (ARF) option for the

balance of his fund. Having been advised to talk the matter over with his accountant, the

Provider submits that the Complainant phoned A later, on 24 April 2017 confirming that

he wished to proceed with the ARF with the insurance intermediary.

The Provider indicates its understanding that the Complainant had matured his pension

through the RAC administrator before the 31 March 2017 deadline, taken his 25% tax free

lump sum and transferred the balance to an ARF with a different provider. It submits that

it had no input on these actions.