Personal Pension Plan Decision Reference 2021-0307

• Case Outcome: Substantially upheld
• Reference: 2021-0307
• Date: 08 September 2021
• Year: 2021
• Subject Matter: Personal Pension Plan
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to provide accurate investment information,Dissatisfaction with customer service , Failure to provide product/service information
• Finantial Sector: Investment

Decision Ref:

2021-0307

Sector:

Investment

Product / Service:

Personal Pension Plan

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to provide accurate investment information

Dissatisfaction with customer service

Failure to provide product/service information

Outcome:

Substantially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

The complaint concerns the Complainant’s Pension Investment Plan with the Provider.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that in September 2017, with the assistance of his financial

advisor, he transferred the sum of €242,079.11 from his personal pension plan to an

investment fund administered by the Provider and that 100% of the funds were invested in

a category 5 ‘High Risk Fund’. The Complainant submits that the Provider’s investment

funds were risk rated between 1 and 8, with 1 being the lowest risk category and category

8 being of the highest risk investment fund.

The Complainant submits that during early July 2019, the value of the fund was at “a near

all time high” and he made the decision to reduce the risk of his investment fund. The

Complainant states that his financial advisor was unable to assist him, and he chose to

initially reduce the risk profile of his investment fund to either a category 1 or a category 2

risk rating fund, until such time as he was able to secure professional advice. The

Complainant submits that throughout the switching process, a number of issues arose with

the Provider.

The Complainant submits that while considering his options to switch the funds, he went

onto the Provider’s website, where it was stated that 62 funds were available and the

Complainant submits that only 61 funds were actually listed on the website.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainant states that the Provider supplied a summary schedule upon clicking on

each relevant fund, which he submits set out the details of the funds’ performance and

risk ratings and it also supplied a fact sheet which supplied further details of the relevant

fund.

The Complainant submits that within the Provider’s website only two of the low risk funds

were rated as risk level 1 and that these were cash funds, and that the remaining low risk

rated funds were risk 2 level.

The Complainant says that at that time he concentrated on the low risk cash fund with the

intention to opt for a possible level 2 or level 3 risk fund upon the advice of a financial

advisor. The Complainant submits that upon reviewing the low risk cash fund, he was

unable to review the fact sheet of that fund due to an error message on the Provider’s

website which stated “Page not found”.

The Complainant states that upon reviewing the fact sheet of another low risk cash fund,

he noted that it was classified as a level 2 risk category and the summary schedule of that

cash fund showed it to be a level 1 risk category. The Complainant submits that on 04 July

2019, he telephoned the Provider to seek clarification of the two cash fund options and

the risk levels associated with them. The Complainant submits that during this telephone

conversation he noted that three of the remaining funds which had been listed on the

Provider’s website as being “low Risk” had a higher risk set out in the relevant fact sheets,

than which had been indicated on the relevant summary of schedule for those investment

funds. The Complainant submits that on the Provider’s website, investment funds rated as

‘Medium Risk’ funds were included in the ‘Low Risk’ category.

The Complainant submits that it is his understanding that the correct level of risk of the

investment funds is set out in the fact sheet rather than the summary of schedule of each

investment fund. The Complainant says that when he informed the Provider’s

representative of the risk level discrepancies, between the summary schedules and fact

sheets, the Provider’s representative “expressed surprise” and he was unable to provide an

explanation for the discrepancies. The Complainant states that the level of risk

discrepancies on the Provider’s website are not immediately obvious and are highly

confusing and that they have the potential to mislead clients when accessing the

information on-line.

The Complainant says that during the telephone call on 04 July 2019, he was informed by

the Provider that the transfer fund value of the investment fund, would be the fund value

as at 02 July 2019, and that during this call he instructed the Provider’s representative to

switch his funds into the level 1 low risk cash fund and he submits that this investment

fund had no fact sheet available on the Provider’s website.

The Complainant submits that the Provider issued the investment fund switch effective

from 04 July 2019 as requested, though it did not use the fund value as at 02 July 2019 as

previously advised by the Provider.