View more on these topics

deVere pays compensation over pension transfer complaint

Pensions-savings-retirement-piggy bank

International advice firm deVere UK must pay compensation to a woman who complained about how the firm managed her overseas pension transfer.

The complainant, Mrs M, transferred her UK pension into a qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme on the advice of a Cyprus-based business in 2008.

The Cyprus business is outside the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service, but the complaints adjudicator took issue with the actions of deVere in the UK, which Mrs M first contacted in 2012 after she returned to Britain.

An April 2012 report by deVere showed Mrs M’s valuation as £48,050. The original transfer into the QROPS in June 2008 was for £73,823. Mrs M’s main investment was in RBS shares and deVere said she was reluctant to sell this as it had already lost more than one third of its value.

According to the FOS decision, Mrs M could not recall saying this, even though she acknowledged a meeting took place after she returned to the UK and that she had had a lot of contact from a number of advisers at deVere.

Risky business?

Mrs M did not receive advice from deVere until a review in 2014. Her risk attitude was deemed cautious to moderate and her aim was to get the QROPS into the UK, to reduce charges and to improve investment returns.

DeVere recommended a switch from RBS’s dynamic asset allocator into a mixture of cash and funds. Mrs M was advised to keep the existing investment in the RBS GBP managed fund.

In January 2015 the value of the fund had increased to £49,937 but a year later it had fallen to £47,586. She complained about the drop in value and said she no longer wanted deVere to look after her pension.

DeVere said the advice was in line with Mrs M’s attitude to risk and that it tried to help transfer her away from the QROPS when there were problems with the indemnity form relating to the transfer with the QROPS trustees.

The FOS adjudicator said the 2014 advice was not unreasonable, however, they said deVere should have looked at transferring the QROPS earlier, even though any transfer before 2016 would have resulted in an exit charge.

The adjudicator recommended compensation for the trouble and upset caused to Mrs M around the numerous advisers she saw and “lack of advice”.

The complaint was later referred to ombudsman Adrian Hudson whose decision says: “The QROPS plans had a high level of penalties applied if it was to be surrendered. It was noted by deVere that the QROPs was heavily overweight in one investment and that Mrs M was unhappy that the value of this investment had fallen so much.”

“Disappointing” returns

Hudson agrees the portfolio recommended by deVere was not inappropriate for someone with Mrs M’s risk appetite.

However, he adds: “It is clearly disappointing for Mrs M that having paid her higher fees in the hope of obtaining higher rates of return that these were not achieved. However, it is important to note that the higher returns were not guaranteed and unfortunately did not arise.”

Hudson says: “I have seen that the adjudicator proposed an award of £300 for the distress and inconvenience that Mrs M suffered with regard to an indemnity form that has now been resolved. I consider that this fair and reasonable and I make no further award. I uphold this complaint against deVere and Partners (UK) Limited but in part only. I award Mrs M the sum of £300 for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered.”

deVere UK confirmed this month it has agreed to stop providing pension transfer reports as the FCA has launched an investigation into it.



FOS Sipp claims rise another 12%

The Financial Ombudsman Service continues to see an increase Sipp complaint volumes. The complaints adjudicator received another 408 Sipp-related enquiries between October and December 2016, its latest data shows, up 12 per cent from 364 over the same period in 2015. 140 made it to a final decision from an ombudsman, and 47 per cent […]


IFA firm future in doubt after FOS upholds Harlequin investment complaint

A Kent-based advice firm is questioning its future after a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service related to a Harlequin property investment was upheld against it. The decision, published by the FOS in September, relates to a client who was advised by Foreman Financial Services, trading as GraingerCo Financial Services, to transfer his pension to […]


FOS cuts 600 staff over 2016

The Financial Ombudsman Service slashed more than 600 jobs last year, a Freedom of Information Act request reveals. In January 2016, headcount at the complaints handling service stood at 3609. This had fallen to 3296 by June, and 2974 by the end of the year. The largest monthly drop came between September and October, when […]


Guide: how to change your auto-enrolment support

As we approach the two-year milestone of auto-enrolment, employers have had the opportunity to truly assess the capabilities of their chosen support. They are also now realising that getting to the staging date was the easy part, and that support is required for almost every aspect of the day to day running of their scheme. With the three-year re-enrolment window coinciding for many with the total removal of commission and Active Member Discounts from pension-related products and services, as well as the introduction of the pension charge cap in April 2015, many employers will have no choice but to review their support options. But, what is involved in transitioning your auto-enrolment scheme away from your current support options? This guide from Johnson Fleming aims to outline some of these key areas and provide information and discussion points on what you need to consider.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Unregulated Pensions Advice out of Cyprus, no doubt with an 8 year lock-in Life Wrapper, undisclosed commissions etc… Why is this firm not named?

  2. Feels a bit ‘damned if you do’ from the point of view of de Vere if you ask me – client feels she’d have been better off paying the exit penalty (and, presumably, advice charge) as the returns could have been better….. “Who knows what plan it would have been, but it could have made her thousands instead of losing her thousands” – this is despite already loosing circa 33% of the plan value due to the RBS holding and (I assume) QROPS charges.

    Also note, error in the article – value of £49,937 was Jan 15 not Jan 16.

  3. They tripped up by not advising her to transfer earlier and pay the penalty.

    Guess what would have happened if they had advised her to do so.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm