View more on these topics

FOS orders compensation over advice to transfer Sipp into Cypriot property

Home-House-Money-Property-700x450.jpgThe Financial Ombudsman Service has told advice firm Kingsway Wealth Management to compensate a client who invested his pensions into residential apartments in Limassol, Cyprus.

Mr B complains that the advice to transfer his savings into a self-invested personal pension plan exposed his pension to more risk than he was prepared to take.

The case dates back to 2009 when Mr B was advised by an appointed representative of Kingsway called Pension Transfers to put his money into a Sipp.

The pension fund was then invested in Cyprus One Limited, which offered the opportunity to invest using a “genuinely diverse commercial vehicle”.

This involved investing in the development of residential apartments in Limassol, Cyprus.

In 2016, Mr B complained to Kingsway who accepted it had advised on the transfer into the Sipp but says it had no knowledge of the subsequent investment.

Kingsway rejected the complaint, initially arguing Mr B complained too late and that another adviser called Mr M was actually responsible for advice to put money into the property development.

In the provisional decision ombudsman Doug Mansell rejected Kingsway’s arguments and quoted guidance issued by the FCA in 2013 that explains the duties advisers have here.

The FCA said at the time: “Where a financial adviser recommends a Sipp knowing that the customer will transfer out of a current pension arrangement to release funds to invest in an overseas property investment under a Sipp, then the suitability of the overseas property investment must form part of the advice about whether the customer should transfer into the Sipp.”

Additionally Mansell referred to an email to Kingsway from the FCA (then the FSA) dated December 2008 which said: “In our view, it is difficult to separate advice on the merits of joining a Sipp from the merits of particular investment assets to be held under that Sipp compared to the funds and benefits from the ceding scheme.”

In its response to the provisional decision Kingsway said Mr M must have been giving regulated advice as he was advising on a Sipp, which is a regulated product.

Furthermore Kingsway believes it is not “fair and reasonable or consistent with other decisions for Kingsway to be held responsible for advising on the movement of cash out of the Sipp into Cyprus One Limited”.

In his final judgement now released, Mansell confirms that Kingsway is responsible for the advice and owes compensation.

He says: “I appreciate it believes Mr M, acting on behalf of a different regulated business, was responsible for advising Mr B to invest in Cyprus One Limited.

“Kingsway has provided evidence Mr M arranged such an investment. But this relates to a different customer, not Mr B. And it took place several months after Mr B made his investment. So I don’t think this has a bearing on this case.”

He adds: “Kingsway has referred to several similar complaints reviewed by this service, involving itself and other businesses. But while I’ve noted these, I don’t think they are material to this complaint.

“The circumstances and factors applying to each complaint are likely to be different, and I’ve considered Mr B’s complaint on its individual circumstances.”

Kingsway has been ordered to pay £500 for the trouble caused and should calculate fair compensation by comparing the value of Mr B’s pension if he hadn’t transferred, with the current value of his Sipp.

A spokesman for Kingsway tells Money Marketing: “We are not in a position to respond as we are seeking advice.”

Recommended

Sea-Sand-Beach-Vacation-Holiday-700.jpg

FOS penalises Intrinsic over Sipp transfer to Harlequin

The Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled against Intrinsic Financial Planning over a client who switched his personal pension to a self-invested personal pension in order to invest in Harlequin. Mr A complains that he received unsuitable advice from an appointed representative of Intrinsic to switch his personal pension to a Sipp. When the transfer was […]

Business-Finance-Corporate-General-Paperwork-700.jpg
7

FOS penalises Intrinsic for delayed pension transfer

The Financial Ombudsman Service has instructed Old Mutual Wealth-owned  network Intrinsic to compensate a client who lost money when their pension transfer was delayed. In the case Mr T complains the delayed transfer of his Occupational Pension Scheme resulted in him receiving a lower transfer value than originally quoted. In September 2016 Mr T found […]

Risk-reward-attitude-profit
6

FOS orders compensation over Sipp transfer to Ucis

The Financial Ombudsman Service has told a firm to compensate a client who was advised to transfer their Sipp into an unregulated collective investment scheme.     The client, referred to as Mr C, complained that advice he received from The Citimark Partnership to invest funds from his Sipp into an Ucis was unsuitable. Mr C […]

6

FOS orders compensation over Harlequin pension transfer

The Financial Ombudsman Service has ordered IFA firm Sussex Independent Financial Advisers to compensate a client for advising them to transfer their pension into a Sipp set up to invest in Harlequin. The decision concerns a client referred to as Mrs S, who complained about the advice she received in 2009 to move her pension […]

Managing customers in drawdown

By Lorna Blyth, Investment Marketing Manager Delivering a decent drawdown review process takes time and resources. This article looks at how you can manage drawdown clients in a more cost-effective way. Most advisers are seeing an increase in drawdown clients following pension freedoms. Often these are clients with lower fund sizes, which means advisers are […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Another one is upheld despite the regulations being very clear none of the operators come clean – honesty seems very scant

  2. But if Mr B took investment advice from someone (the mysterious Mr M) who worked for a firm entirely unconnected with Kingsway, how is that the responsibility of Kingsway? What about the firm for which Mr M worked? Is that firm being allowed to get off scot free?

  3. I thought SIPP meant Self Invested.

    Also what about M?.

  4. These FOS people are very clever aren’t they!

  5. I think this is one of those cases where it is best to read the FOS decision notice BEFORE commenting on the article as I suspect once read, most advisers will agree with the FOS contrary to initial impression from the article.

  6. I got bored of reading the FOS decision DRN8034503 http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk and whilst i have some sympathy for Kingsway, I agree with the FOS decisions, BUT there are serious questions here as to why the REGULATED intoducer (the introdocuer was regulated through a NETWORK who would not allow the introducer to undertake unregulated advice) and this person should be named and both their Network and their SPS provider should have been asked to make a decision on their fitness and propriety and Kingsway and their PI insuers should be making a claim against the REGULATED introducer in their personal capacity or that of their unregulated firm.

Leave a comment