Personal Pension Plan Decision Reference 2022-0227

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Reference: 2022-0227
• Date: 05 July 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Personal Pension Plan
• Finantial Sector: Investment
• Conducts Complained Of: Mis-selling (pensions),Failure to provide accurate investment information, Fees & charges applied , Misrepresentation (pensions)

Decision Ref:

2022-0227

Sector:

Investment

Product / Service:

Personal Pension Plan

Conduct(s) complained of:

Mis-selling (pensions)

Fees & charges applied

Failure to provide accurate investment information

Misrepresentation (pensions)

Outcome:

Partially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complaint concerns a Qualified Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme (QROPS)

recommended to the Complainant, a UK resident, by the Provider in July 2014, acting in its

capacity as ‘Broker”. A QROPS is a pension product which allows for the transfer of pension

entitlements from the UK to Ireland without tax consequences in many circumstances. The

Complainant’s pension benefits were previously held in personal pension plans before the

transfer of his benefits to the QROPS arrangement. The Trustee of the scheme was originally

[H] until this role was taken over by [TM]. The life company provides investment services

and the trust scheme is a self-administered arrangement.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant states that the Provider recommended a pension product which he

believes was “unsuitable at the outset and continues to be so”. The Complainant further

states that he had two personal pension plans which totalled £72,690.66 and which were

transferred in January 2015 to an offshore arrangement and then invested into a

combination of investment funds and loan notes. The Complainant contends that the initial

recommendation made by the Provider was an investment in a blend of [P] and [J] funds

with a view to bringing down the risk of the overall portfolio, but the Complainant believes

that this was “riskier than I had agreed to”. The Complainant says that the Provider

maintains that “we did not offer, pertain to offer whole of market advice” but that its Terms

of Business state that the Provider is an independent broker, which “suggests to me at least

some level of independence and access to whole of market”.

The Complainant says that contained in the Annuity Service Provider (ASP) statement, was

a declaration that UK pension holders must buy “an annuity or ASP” which the Complainant