View more on these topics

Sipp customer compensated for transfer delay

Money-Cash-Coins-GBP-Pounds-UK-700x450.jpg

Sipp providers Curtis Banks and Fidelity must compensate a client after he complained that a pension transfer delay resulted in him losing £14,000.

The Pensions Ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered that Curtis Banks and Fidelity recalculate the compensation payable to the complainant at the settlement date with Curtis Banks paying 64 per cent of the compensation and Fidelity paying 36 per cent.

The compensation is to be paid into the complainant’s Fidelity Sipp.

Both companies must also pay the man £250 for distress and inconvenience.

According to the ombudsman’s decision, Fidelity sent the details of the man’s transfer request to Curtis Banks on 4 December 2014 through Origo. Curtis Banks received the request on 5 December and changed the Origo record to show it was “in progress”.

On 9 January, Fidelity telephoned Curtis Banks for an update on the transfer. It was told the transfer could not be completed through Origo because it was “out of scope” and that Curtis Banks would send Fidelity forms for it to be processed manually.

Fidelity received the forms on 13 January but did not send anything to the complainant until 30 January. The complainant returned the letter of authority to Fidelity on 5 February and the discharge form on 19 February.

Curtis Banks received the completed forms from Fidelity on 20 February but had to ask the complainant to resend the discharge form because the member declaration on the original was spoiled.

Curtis Banks received the new form on 25 February and sent Fidelity the £190,701 transfer payment the following day. Fidelity received it on 2 March.

Both Curtis Banks and Fidelity accepted that taking three months to complete Mr Y’s transfer was too long and that their actions played a part in the delay.

Curtis Banks said if the transfer process was not delayed it could have been completed by 29 December 2014 and the complainant therefore suffered a financial loss of £13,917.06, calculated as at 14 November 2016.

Fidelity did not accept the initial opinion of the TPO adjudicator so it was passed to the ombudsman, who upheld that decision.

Deputy pensions ombudsman Karen Johnston says in her decision that Curtis Banks was responsible for the first period of delay and Fidelity for the second.

She says: “The initial period of delay was due in my view to Curtis Banks recording the transaction as in progress when it was not, and then losing track of it. They explained that because the initial input to Origo was made in error, they were not aware of the 10-day timeframe for response in this particular instance. Therefore, they were unaware of the outstanding issue until Fidelity contacted them on 9 January. I conclude that Curtis Banks should have had checks in place, which in this particular case they did not.”

Johnston adds: “I can see no reason to hold Fidelity responsible for that oversight because the remedy was always within Curtis Banks’ control. The argument that Fidelity should have chased Curtis Banks earlier during the first period of delay, could equally well apply in reverse to limit Fidelity’s liability during the second. In the circumstances I consider that each party should bear responsibility for the period of delay which occurred while an outstanding task was actually in their hands and within their control.”

Recommended

Telephone-Phone-Business-Finance-General-700.jpg
3

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 […]

Appeal-Court-High-Court-Building--700x450.jpg
5

Ombudsman to boost legal role after Royal London scam case

The Pensions Ombudsman is to take a bigger role in pensions disputes that reach the courts,  including pension liberation and auto-enrolment, after a controversial decision on a pension transfer. Currently the ombudsman can be party to an appeal though it is does not have a right to. But Ombudsman Anthony Arter wants to take a more […]

Anthony Arter
1

Ombudsman backs Royal London over missing £113k pension

The Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint made against Royal London after a customer lost a pension worth £112,542 he transferred away from the firm. Mr. T said the provider was to blame for letting him transfer his pension to the Capita Oak Scheme in 2012. He is now unable to locate his fund and […]

China’s economic bounce may already be over

By Mike Riddell (17 May 2016) Most people would explain the rally in global risky assets since mid-February as being primarily down to the spectacular volte-face from the Federal Reserve, where Janet Yellen (and others) dramatically toned down their narrative that the Fed would be hiking rates as many as four times in 2016. This explanation […]

China tech and Global Alpha: a new great leap forward

By Robin Geffen, Fund Manager and CEO

Internet giant Alibaba is exactly the type of entrepreneurial company that the high-conviction, top-performing Neptune Global Alpha Fund seeks to invest in. Established just 14 years ago in an apartment in Hangzhou, today Alibaba is larger than Amazon and eBay put together and is challenging some of the most powerful internet companies in the world…

Read more 


Important information

Investment risks

The value of an investment and any income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Forecasts and past performance are not a guide to future performance. Some information and statistical data herein has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable but in no way are warranted by us as to their accuracy or completeness. These are Neptune’s views and as such this document is deemed to be impartial research. We do not undertake to advise you of any change to our views.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. A great example of why the industry wide initiative on “Improving Pension and Investment Transfers and Re-registrations” is so urgently needed. The consultation on the proposals closes on 31 January 2017.

  2. Presumably the compensation that’s being proposed is being treated as a third-party contribution and the client has earnings which would justify that level of contribution (including any others made {and to be made} this tax year). Similarly he must have available annual allowance and must not have certain forms of lifetime allowance which would mean loss of that protection if a contribution is made

Leave a comment