View more on these topics

FOS orders compensation over Sipp delay by Mattioli Woods

The Financial Ombudsman Service has decided that Mattioli Woods must pay compensation over a botched Sipp administration which resulted in delays to a transfer, but does not have to pay back some of the fees it charged.

Despite an initial ruling in his favour, a client said the FOS adjudicator had calculated redress unfairly, and that Mattioli Woods was “dictating” to the FOS to avoid paying appropriate compensation.

A client originally had two Sipps, one, Pilgrim Sipp, collecting rental income from a property held in a separate group Sipp, and a second, E V Group Sipp, holding land overseas.

When Pilgrim went into administration in 2012, Mattioli Woods took over as administrators, saying it would keep Pilgrim’s charging structure, where fees were waived because Pilgrim had a reciprocal business arrangement with the client’s business.

Mattioli Woods told the client when they wanted to transfer that the Pilgrim Sipp held a property asset, so they would still have to charge after cash was transferred.

After a delay, Mattioli found the relevant paprework to confirm the Sipp was actually held in the Group Sipp, and was then able to transfer.

Mattioli Woods continued to take fees from the Pilgrim Sipp while the status of the property asset was agreed on, and the client claimed to the FOS that he was entitled to compensation for this, because he had not signed a new fee agreement that would change his charges under a new administrator.

An adjudicator had already ruled Mattioli Woods made an error on where the property was held, so should compensate for any potential investment loss during the delay.

The client argued again for the fees to be refunded, but an ombudsman deicision confirms that the original decision stands.

The decision from ombudsman David Bird reads: “I do not believe that addiing interest to the money that was transferred late is the approriate approach to redress….The ‘delay period’ was not based on picking a low point in the market but on the delay period that actually occured.”

“I allowed for the fees incurred after May 2015 in the overall redress calculation. I do not believe it would be fair to separately refund them. Their effect is incorporated into the redress.”



Hargreaves Lansdown boss pockets £2.5m pay packet

Hargreaves Lansdown chief executive Chris Hill has received a pay package of £2.5m in the year ending 30 June 2018 made up of a combination of shares, bonuses and pension payments. Following his first full year leading the company, Hill was given a base salary of £620,000, following a 2 per cent increase in executive […]


Numbers of Isa savers at 20-year low

The number of people saving into an Isa fell to its lowest level in nearly 20 years, according to annual HM Revenue & Customs figures published today. This comes after a similar drop the previous year, with an almost 13 per cent fall in the number of Isas opened. However the update also shows the […]

Pensions minister: Why DC consolidation needs to be simpler

As minister for pensions and financial inclusion, I understand how important it is to promote the business community and support job creators. But I am also acutely aware the government needs to find the right balance between encouraging business and protecting people who are working hard for their families. In pensions, this balance is especially […]


True Potential put up for sale

Platform, fund management and advice business True Potential has been put up for sale, in a deal that could be worth up to £2bn, according to Sky News. It is reported True Potential has appointed bankers from Perella Weinberg Partners to deal with offers from prospective buyers. The company is owned 739 individual partners, with a […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. Christopher Mayes 3rd September 2018 at 6:02 pm

    It would useful when citing an FOS decision, if you would also provide a link to the final decision on their site website, or at least the case number or name.

    I feel sure that this would be much appreciated by those who read the articles you write and have an interest in understanding the context of the statements made.

  2. At least ten spelling errors in one article. Do you have a Sub Editor job going, by any chance?

  3. On the topic of Sipps I note that summer is officially over as of August 31st and there is no decision in the Carey’s case

  4. I take it the spell check was broken when this was written?

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