View more on these topics

Pensions ombudsman rejects complaint over LV= Sipp transfer

The Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint against LV= after a customer lost £16,000 while transferring into a new pensions policy.

Mr H complained that LV= failed to act on his instructions to cash in and reinvest his portfolios while in drawdown.
The transfer represented an internal transfer from a LV= pension policy to a new pension policy also with LV= and included three investment plans.
Mr H also asked a transfer from one of the plans, a Rathbones portfolio to MPL Investment Management’s discretionary management service as an in-specie transfer.
After cashing in the funds in the portfolio, £154,000 remained in the trustees’ bank account until the Rathbones’ investment transfer to MPL was completed eight months later.
Mr H complained that the proceeds were still in the trustees account and were not invested.
Through his adviser, Mr R, Mr H asked LV= to reinvest one of the portfolios, the Threadneedle Portfolio 6 but this was done at a higher unit price which changed in the period between September 2012, when the cash in happened, and February 2013, when LV= suggested to re-sell the portfolios.
Mr H claimed redress from LV= as the difference in unit price of £0.112 at sale represented a financial loss of £16,952.32.
But LV= explained the firm has to keep funds in the client’s account until all transfers have been received unless they received specific investment instructions and pointed out that Mr H had signed an agreement on these rules.
LV= also says the reason they did not transfer the cash available was because the
instruction letter did not confirm any request for partial transfers.
Deputy Pensions Ombudsman Karen Johnston says in her decision:”The declarations signed by Mr H clearly outline the process and warn of the potential that funds will be held in cash whilst all existing investments are being cashed in prior to the setting up the new arrangement.”
She says the letter of instruction from the IFA to immediately reinvest the cash was not clear and therefore she decided not to uphold the complaint against LV=.
She says:”If the IFA’s intention was to cash in and reinvest immediately without waiting for the in-specie investment then the IFA needed to have specifically stated that.”

Recommended

Meeting the FCA’s fund cost challenge

Money Marketing spoke to Chris Sier, chair of the FCA Institutional Disclosure Working Group, to see how he plans to put a fund cost template in place Sier: Everyone thinks that the FCA asset management market study interim report was stronger than the final report but actually the main report was the one where the […]

Richard-Parkin-grey

Fidelity pensions head leaves firm

Fidelity International head of pensions policy Richard Parkin is leaving the firm after 15 years to take some time away from the industry. While a direct replacement will not be appointed, head of pensions product Carolyn Jones will take on more externally facing duties following his departure at the end of December. A Fidelity spokesperson […]

Standard Life adds to MyFolio fund range

Standard Life Investment has added global credit and REITs to its MyFolio fund range in its latest quarterly review of its strategic asset allocation. In an update shared with its intermediary investors, SLI said it had introduced global corporate bonds and short-dated global corporate bonds, both hedged back to sterling. The allocation to global corporate bonds […]

Jelf flexible benefits

In Focus: How to choose a flexible benefits provider — seven top tips

Jelf Employee Benefits looks at some of the key considerations employers should think about when reviewing and choosing a flexible benefits provider. Choosing the right benefits for your employees is one thing but delivering a successful employee benefits strategy is about understanding the complete picture and delivering it in a personalised way so that it resonates with each and every individual in your business. 

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Looks like the IFA was at fault in a) not stating monies should buy funds when first received, and b) not bothering to actual monitor what was happening with the various funds over time.

  2. I wonder if Mr H will now complain to the IFA and this will eventually result in an uphold at FOS.

  3. Did any party have a duty of care to the consumer? Were this a banking case, I suspect historically there would have been an argument about a banking duty of care on the part of one of the consumers agents.
    What next with this case I wonder?

Leave a comment