View more on these topics

Scottish Widows escapes pension transfer complaint at ombudsman

Anybody that needs to complain in the UK about a financial institution or service, must ultimately do so to the Financial Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will then arbitrate on the matter. The can adjudicate on any matter relating to banking, insurance, mortgages, credit cards and store cards, loans, credit, pensions, savings, investments, hire purchase, pawnbroking, money transfer, financial advice, stocks, shares, unit trusts and bonds. Basically, if there’s an issue related to any financial matter in the UK, the Ombudsman is empowered to arbitrate if the matter cannot be resolved between the two parties. Here the bank note imagery of a sterling bank note carries the message, with the Gavel symbolising the adjudication.

Scottish Widows has escaped a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman that the provider unfairly reduced the value of a client’s pension transfer.

The client, referred to as Mrs E, requested a cash equivalent transfer value out of Scottish Widows’ Retirement Benefit Scheme in June 2015, and was quoted a figure of £686,687. In early August, this value had been revised down to £644,226 after a new actuary had been appointed to the scheme.

While there were three distinct warning on the original quotation letter that the value was for “illustration purposes only”, and “therefore not guaranteed”, Mrs E complained that these had been missed by both her and her IFA so were “not prominent enough.”

Though she opted out of the scheme regardless, Mrs E argued that she was treated unfairly compared to deferred members of the scheme who were able to lock in their CETV for three months, and that she was forced to pay for financial advice.

Scottish Widows offered Mrs E £500 in compensation for not informing her of the new transfer calculation method sooner, but said there was “no basis upon which Mrs E or her IFA could have assumed the transfer value was guaranteed” so offered no further redress.

Clear messages

This was upheld by an adjudicator but then appealed to the Pensions Ombudsman.

Pensions Ombudsman Anthony Arter agreed with the adjudicator’s decision that “opting out from a final salary scheme is an important decision and it was therefore correct for the trustees to ensure Mrs E had sought financial advice.”

He also agreed that the wording around guarantees was clear enough.

Arter’s decision reads: “The wording could not be clearer in my view. Mrs E recently submitted a copy of the June 2015 CETV statement which clearly states that as she was still a member of the Scheme her transfer value was not guaranteed.”

He adds: “There was no statutory requirement for the Trustees to place a three month guarantee on Mrs E’s CETV because she was not a deferred member, so this has nothing to do with acting fairly or not.”

He added that did “seem to be excessive” that Mrs E took a month to find an IFA when considering her pension transfer.



DWP: Advice requirement puts ex-pat pension transfers at risk

Ex-pat pension savers are open to the risk of inappropriate pension transfers because of rules forcing them to take advice from a UK IFA, the Government has warned. Since the introduction of the pension freedoms, anyone with safeguarded pension benefits greater than £30,000 must take advice before transferring. In a consultation paper today, the Department […]

IHT and the pension transfer window

Generally speaking, trustees and scheme administrators have discretion over the distribution of death benefits from a pension scheme. This is important as it means the benefits can usually be paid free of any inheritance tax. However, the reform to the taxation of death benefits and the record £4.6bn IHT revenue HM Revenue & Customs took […]


Case study: administration — implementing a management log

Our client is a leading video game and publishing company best known for its console role-playing game franchises. The client provides a number of benefits, at varying levels and cost that attract a P11d liability. With the absence of a management log to track data for benefit movements, enormous administrative and therefore cost implications were occurring each year just to comply with P11d reporting requirements.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Scottish Widows may have escaped but I suspect the adviser will not be so lucky.

  2. A correct, common sense decision by the Ombudsman Service.

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