View more on these topics

FOS penalises Intrinsic for delayed pension transfer

Business-Finance-Corporate-General-Paperwork-700.jpgThe 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 out his pension scheme had a cash equivalent transfer value of just over £780,000 that was guaranteed until mid-December.

In October 2016 Mr T received advice from a firm referred to as ‘D’ which he paid to transfer the scheme into his self-invested personal pension.

Although the transfer forms were completed and D said it sent them to the Sipp providers shortly after this meeting, the Sipp providers did not receive the documentation.

While handling Mr T’s transfer in November 2016, firm D was sold to Intrinsic which acquired all of the customers and took responsibility for the back book liability.

A couple of days before the deadline, the Sipp providers got in touch with Mr T who then made Intrinsic aware the forms had not been received.

Intrinsic said it was chaotic at the time of taking over D so the paperwork was not received in time and the quotation expired.

A new transfer value was requested and the price had decreased by over £30,000 but Mr T continued with the new transfer value as he wanted to invest.

Mr T gave Intrinsic authority to make the transfer on his behalf in early April 2017 but made a complaint to Intrinsic as he lost £30,000.

Intrinsic admitted it made some mistakes but argued it should not take full responsibility as Mr T used to be a financial adviser and should have done more.

Mr T then brought the complaint to FOS whose investigator sided with him as she thought Mr T had been financially disadvantaged due to the lack of actions from Intrinsic.

She asked Intrinsic to put Mr T back into the position he would’ve been in, had the transfer completed in time but Intrinsic disagreed.

In siding with Mr T ombudsman Hayley West explains that it is reasonable for Mr T to expect Intrinsic to ensure the transfer was completed in time.

She says: “By the time Mr T requested a new transfer value, it had dropped by over £30,000. Intrinsic has said because there was a significant drop in transfer values when Mr T requested the new value, it doesn’t think Mr T should’ve gone ahead with this transfer.

“But Mr T only requested a new transfer value as the original transfer didn’t complete in time. And as I’ve explained above, I think that’s the fault of Intrinsic.”

West has ordered Intrinsic to compare the value of the proceeds transferred from Mr T’s OPS currently invested in his Sipp at the date of this decision and the proceeds that should have been transferred under the original quotation.

If there is any difference then Intrinsic should pay the difference.

She adds: “Income tax may be payable on any interest paid. If Intrinsic deducts income tax from the interest it should tell Mr T how much has been taken off.

“Intrinsic should give Mr T a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate.”

A Intrinsic spokeswoman says: “We’re disappointed that the process followed was not up to our usual high standards and will abide by the Ombudsman’s decision. This was an isolated incident and we’re confident that our systems are robust.”

Recommended

Sipp transfers up 30% year-on-year

Self-invested personal pension transfer volumes are up 30 per cent year-on-year, according to figures published by Origo. The data from the firm’s Options Transfers service shows overall transfer volumes are up by 15 per cent on 2016 with £31bn transferred from January to December 2017 compared to £24bn the previous year. Sipps are the biggest […]

1

Danby Bloch: Advisers are stuck in the past on technology

Too many are under-utilising crucial technology that will save precious time and keep clients safe Advisers often say their clients do not want to know about new technology, yet when clients are offered the opportunity to use up-to-date digital methods, about three-quarters of them take it up. That said, if you thought the new Mifid […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Presumably when Mr T realises his nice new SIPP has lost him money compared to staying with the old scheme he will trot off back to FOS and force Intrinsic to compensate him again.

  2. What if the transfer value had gone up when the figures were recalculated, would Intrinsic get the benefit?

  3. Some of these DB specialist pay little attention to the CETV expiry date and I am glad FOS have ruled against them.

  4. bet he is really happy in his sipp in the current climate he will be making another claim for the fall in value of his fund food old FOSSIE

  5. As a former IFA, he does seem to have been very slow to follow this up. Afterall the amount involved was not small change.

    Doubt if he could argue that the advice to transfer was flawed.

  6. Mike Hunt (made up name ?), I have no idea what you are talking about. The CETV expiry date is absolutely fundamental to the advice being given, and so could change if the date was missed. So sad that people get to make such ill-informed statements like this. I can only assume you are not a specialist yourself….

  7. “Intrinsic admitted it made some mistakes but argued it should not take full responsibility as Mr T used to be a financial adviser and should have done more.”

    What a terrible attitude. Regardless of a customer’s background, they have contracted the adviser for professional services and should expect the supplier to do everything required to complete the transaction in the required timescales.

Leave a comment