View more on these topics

FOS orders Standard Life to pay redress over missed Sipp reviews

Payment-Fine-Currency-Money-700.jpg

The Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled Standard Life must compensate a customer after the provider failed to review and manage his Sipp.

Standard Life advised the customer, referred to as ‘Mr S’ in the ruling, to transfer his three pensions to a Sipp in 2008.

The customer immediately took 25 per cent of tax-free cash worth around £41,000 and placed the rest of his funds – around £121,000 – in the Sipp in cash.

The suitability report said Standard Life would review the customer each year as well as rebalance his portfolio twice a year.

In the final ruling, Ombudsman Benjamin Taylor says he was concerned about the suitability of Standard Life’s advice. In particular, the FOS raised concerns about the withdrawal of tax-free cash and whether it had properly explained the benefits of guaranteed annuity rates.

Taylor said the fact the report included “an entirely different person’s name” also raised alarms.

However, he says the customer probably would have transferred his funds to the Sipp anyway.

He says: “The attractiveness of an annuity was reduced by the fact he didn’t require an income at this time, and wouldn’t for a number of years.

“When combined with Mr S’s objective of providing for his wife, on the balance of probabilities, he still would have taken this course of action.”

However, Taylor says Standard Life wronged the customer by failing to carry out reviews between 2008 and 2012.

He says: “Leaving the funds in cash for six years has been detrimental to the value of Mr S’s Sipp.

“He has paid charges for the [portfolio management service] and Sipp which meant he has made no return on the money at all. It has stagnated and with the withdrawals has meant the capital has simply shrunk.

“To move to a Sipp for the purpose of being able to retain the flexibility of drawdown means the funds must be invested to some extent.”

Taylor adds: “Standard Life did do something wrong and it’s fair and reasonable for Mr S to be compensated for that. But from 2013 Standard Life were taking measures to correct those errors and some responsibility then rested with Mr S.

“As a result any compensation should be limited up to the time of the review in September 2013.”

The FOS has ordered Standard Life to compare the value of the Sipp with a benchmark it calculated to determine the compensation it must pay. The provider must also pay the customer £250 for any trouble and upset it caused him.

Recommended

Appeal-Court-High-Court-Building--700x450.jpg
5

Ombudsman to boost legal role after Royal London scam case

The Pensions Ombudsman is to take a bigger role in pensions disputes that reach the courts,  including pension liberation and auto-enrolment, after a controversial decision on a pension transfer. Currently the ombudsman can be party to an appeal though it is does not have a right to. But Ombudsman Anthony Arter wants to take a more […]

Anthony Arter
2

Ombudsman sees sharp rise in liberation and Sipp complaints

The Pensions Ombudsman received over 200 complaints concerning pension liberation in 2015/16, up from 180 on the previous year. Cases relating to pension liberation – where savers attempt to access their pot before the age of 55 – account for 20 per cent of all cases, according to the Ombudsman’s annual report. In addition, enquiries […]

Neptune video: Indian valuations and Modi’s pro-investment agenda

Kunal Desai, Head of Indian Equities, discusses his expectations for the Indian market and highlights the key indicators that he is watching for 2015.

In the video, Kunal addresses:

• Indian equity valuations and the importance of stock selection in gaining exposure to the earnings upgrade cycle

• The BJP’s strengthening ambition in its pro-reform, pro-investment agenda

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Probably the right decision. There does appear to be a developing trend however of when the decision goes against the firm of not only the consumer being put back in to the position they would have been had the error not occurred, but always paying £250 for distress.

  2. Given the policyholder took several years to notice, does suggest he may not have been terribly interested in moving his money about.

  3. Anyone got the FOS DRN handy?

Leave a comment