Personal Pension Plan Decision Reference 2026-0023

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2026
• Reference: 2026-0023
• Date: 23 February 2026
• Subject Matter: Personal Pension Plan
• Finantial Sector: Investment
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to provide correct information,Delayed or inadequate communication, Failure to inform of drop in value

Decision Ref:

2026-0023

Sector:

Investment

Product / Service:

Personal Pension Plan

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to provide correct information

Delayed or inadequate communication

Failure to inform of drop in value

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

This complaint is about a Personal Pension Plan (the “Policy”).

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that she had a personal pension plan with a third-party provider.

The Complainant states that in July 2014, she transferred the balance of the plan, through

her Financial Adviser, to the Provider and invested it into the current Policy with a once off

contribution of €19,929.55 (nineteen thousand, nine hundred and twenty-nine Euro and

fifty-five cent).

The complaint relates to the amount payable by the Provider to the Complainant on her

retirement in 2020.

The Complainant contends that in her interactions with the Provider during the lifetime of

the Policy all documents and pension statements showed an “early cash in penalty” (“early

encashment charge”) of around approx. €700 (seven hundred euro) leading her to believe

that when she waited until she was aged 60, she would receive a lump sum of €19,000

(nineteen thousand euro) approx. tax free. The Complainant says that this is so,

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

considering that the Provider’s pension statements mostly stated that you can earn up to

€200,000 (two hundred thousand euro) tax free. The Complainant further states that the

statements, always implied the fund value was always around €19,000 (nineteen thousand

euro).

The Complainant submits that she completed a Payment Request Form (“I want to take

my benefits” form) furnished to her by the Provider on 7 October 2019 which stated a

balance of €19,189.03 (nineteen thousand, one hundred and eighty-nine euro and three

cent). The Complainant further submits that in the documentation she received, it referred

to a “deposit fund” which led her to think her monies were safe. The Complainant states

that in November 2020, on her retirement, her pension lump sum went without warning

from €19,000 (nineteen thousand euro), down to €13,688 (thirteen thousand, six hundred

and eighty-eight euro) and then she was left with €11,680 (eleven thousand six hundred

and eighty euro).

The Complainant says she wants the Provider to pay her the full amount of €19,000

(nineteen thousand euro) tax-free, as that is what the Pension statements, she received

from the Provider implied.

The Provider’s Case

The Provider submits that it does not believe the Complainant has been financially

disadvantaged and says it is satisfied that the correct retirement date applied to the

Complainant’s Policy as well as the gross and net retirement value paid in November 2020.

The Provider states that the retirement payment was put through its Payroll run as per the

terms and conditions of the Personal Pension Policy and in line with Revenue guidelines to

ensure the appropriate taxes were deducted. The Provider says that although it did raise

the Complainant's tax credit situation with the Complainant’s Financial Adviser on 12

October 2020 and again in early November 2020, “no tax credits were allocated to the

Complainant's retirement payment”. The Provider states that should the Complainant feel

the incorrect tax was deducted it would encourage the Complainant to consult directly

with the Revenue Commissioners.

The Provider submits that it is satisfied that the Policy documentation and statements sent

to the Complainant over the years clearly confirmed the value of the investment was not

guaranteed, that it may change, that it could fluctuate up or down and the amount

payable may be less than invested. The Provider states there was also a reference to

potential tax deductions. The Provider says that the Complainant was encouraged to

consult with her Financial Adviser upon receipt of each annual statement.

- 3 -

/Cont’d…

The Provider states that it correctly processed the Complainant's retirement claim and met

its regulatory and legislative obligations.

The Provider states that the Complainant wrote to the Provider on 3 December 2021

seeking a Final Response Letter. The Provider furnished a Final Response Letter dated 18

January 2022.

The Provider relies on its Policy provisions and states that it correctly processed the

Complainant’s pension.

The Complaint for Adjudication

The complaint is that the Provider, in November 2020, wrongfully and/or unfairly paid out

a lower figure than expected on a Personal Pension Plan following the Complainant's

retirement, in circumstances where repeated representations had been made during the

lifetime of the Plan, that the sum payable on retirement would be substantially higher.

Decision

During the investigation of this complaint by this Office, the Provider was requested to

supply its written response to the complaint and to supply all relevant documents and

information. The Provider responded in writing to the complaint and supplied a number of

items in evidence. The Complainant was given the opportunity to see the Provider’s

response and the evidence supplied by the Provider. A full exchange of documentation

and evidence took place between the parties.

In arriving at my Legally Binding Decision, I have carefully considered the evidence and

submissions put forward by the parties to the complaint.

Having reviewed and considered the submissions made by the parties to this complaint, I

am satisfied that the submissions and evidence furnished did not disclose a conflict of fact

such as would require the holding of an Oral Hearing to resolve any such conflict. I am also

satisfied that the submissions and evidence furnished were sufficient to enable a Legally

Binding Decision to be made in this complaint without the necessity for holding an Oral

Hearing.

A Preliminary Decision was issued to the parties on 23 January 2026, outlining the

preliminary determination of this office in relation to the complaint. The parties were

advised on that date, that certain limited submissions could then be made within a period

of 15 working days, and in the absence of such submissions from either or both of the