View more on these topics

FOS and Pensions Ombudsman at odds over new Sipp complaints deal


The Financial Ombudsman Service and The Pensions Ombudsman are at odds over the status of a new agreement on how to deal with Sipp claims.

After a year of discussions, the two complaints adjudicators have sent conflicting messages over whether or not a new charter would be drawn up to clarify which pension complaints each governs.

In September 2015, the FOS and TPO said they were holding talks to avoid conflicting rulings and overlapping responsibilities over certain pension complaints in the future.

The FOS’ treatment of Sipp provider Berkeley Burke – which it ruled to be responsible for investors’ losses from unregulated collective investment schemes – appeared to contradict earlier POS rulings and sparked discussions over the memorandum of understanding between the two ombudsman services.

The memorandum sets out how the two organisations work together.

The FOS will normally investigate complaints over pensions, including the suitability of pensions advice, but TPO can handle complaints over how individual pension arrangements, such as Sipps, are administered.

When asked if discussions were still ongoing or if the memorandum had been updated, a FOS spokesman told Money Marketing: “We are not actively reviewing the memorandum. We meet with TPO regularly and discuss a variety of things but we are not actively reviewing the memorandum at the moment.

“As you’d expect we talk to TPO regularly and about a variety of topics, which will naturally include our working arrangements and the MoU, but we wouldn’t recognise that as us being in active discussion about reviewing the MoU specifically – any more than any of other issues we discuss.”

The spokesman added: “We have a good working relationship given the crossover of cases.”

However, when asked the same question, a POS spokesman said the ombudsman was “still in discussions with FOS in connection with the MoU.”



No answers from FOS on Berkeley Burke one year on

You might have missed it, but last week was a year since the Financial Ombudsman Service agreed to review a complaint upheld against Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration. The original decision found that Berkeley Burke had failed to carry out adequate due diligence on a £29,394 unregulated collective investment scheme. But after the initiation of judicial […]


FOS reviews Sipp complaint upheld against Berkeley Burke

The Financial Ombudsman Service is reviewing a complaint previously upheld against Sipp operator Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration. In July, Money Marketing reported the FOS had upheld a complaint against Berkeley Burke for failing to carry out adequate due diligence on a £29,394 unregulated collective investment scheme. The complainant transferred the money from a personal pension […]


FOS upholds complaint against Berkeley Burke over Ucis

The Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld a complaint against Sipp operator Berkeley Burke Sipp Admin-istration for failing to carry out adequate due diligence on a £29,000 unregulated collective investment scheme. In 2011 an investor, referred to as Mr A, transferred £29,394 from a personal pension plan into a Sipp through Berkeley Burke after being introduced […]

Natixis video: Making smarter use of asset classes

Content supplied by Natixis Global Asset Management This video from Natixis Global Asset Management focuses on Active Share. One strategy for the smarter use of equity investments is ensuring you get what you pay for. According to the company, looking at Active Share can give you a better perspective on where performance comes from. Active […]

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 […]


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. What with this, the fact that the FOS makes up its own law as it goes and the FCA seems to have yet another perspective (it too ignores the law when it suits), is it any wonder the whole business is a buggers’ muddle?

  2. To me, to you, to me, to you, to me, to you; it might be funny if it wasnt so damn serious! These three outfits represent three of “The Four Regulators of the Apocalypse” (FCA, FOS, TPO and finally the FSCS – who were presumably on holiday??) and between them they decide if we live or die. As I said; it could almost be seen as a comedy… if only our livelihoods didn’t depend on it!

  3. Why is this a surprise, that two none profit organisations are wasting time and resources, our fees will still go up and the compensation levy get larger. The FOS is not fit for purpose and the regulator should do something about that, but can it? as the FOS appear to be above the law.

Leave a comment