The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has partly upheld a complaint against ReAssure due to the "significant" distress and inconvenience its maladministration caused the complainant.

ReAssure was ordered to pay the complainant, Mr S, £500 for the “significant distress and inconvenience” he has experienced, less the £200 it has already paid him.

Mr S said that ReAssure delayed the transfer of two personal pension policies to his Novia UK self-invested personal pension (SIPP).

He also claimed that he telephoned ReAssure many times to explain that the urgency of his transfers was because, from 1 January 2022, he would become a Spanish tax resident.

In addition to this, he said that he had not yet taken any money from his Novia SIPP, but he now had an inherent tax liability because he lived in Spain and wanted ReAssure to cover his future tax liability.

In June 2021, ReAssure sent a transfer statement to Mr S for his two policies in the plan, ER/1 and ER/2.

ReAssure contacted Mr S’ adviser, Fusion Accountancy, to establish the firm’s accountancy qualifications before accepting any letter of authority.

A week later, the adviser telephoned ReAssure who confirmed Mr S’ ER/1 transfer value was £320,923.56 and ReAssure said it would send the adviser policy details and a transfer statement.

Despite Mr S telephoning and asking for a transfer statement in August 2021, he did not receive the statement until mid-October.

In November, Mr S contacted ReAssure to ask if it could email him the International SIPP form as he lived in Spain and wanted ReAssure to complete his transfers as soon as possible to avoid him becoming liable for a large Spanish tax charge.

Mr S continued to contact ReAssure between mid-November and the end of the month and ReAssure emailed the SIPP Form to Mr S on 24 November 2021.

Mr S then sent his completed form two days later and chased ReAssure for the completion of the transfers between 30 November and 14 December 2021.

ReAssure said it was sorry it had let Mr S down, but it had experienced extremely high customer demand, which had sometimes led to "unfortunate" delays and Mr S’ transfers would be completed soon.

It also stated that it would investigate if Mr S had suffered a financial loss, would send Mr S an award of £200 and would give feedback to its team managers to try to avoid similar delays occurring for other customers in the future.

Mr S was told that a manager would be in contact with him on 16 December and in January 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to complain about the way it had processed his transfers.

In particular, he complained it had not telephoned him back when it said it would and the delays he had suffered would cause him a financial loss of £25,000.

Mr S then contacted ReAssure to complain between February and March 2022.

In late March, ReAssure formally contacted Novia (the receiving SIPP provider) regarding the delayed transfers.

Mr S followed up repeatedly between 29 March and April and Novia confirmed that the transferred funds remain un-invested in cash.

In April and May, Mr S continued frequent calls as ReAssure undertook a "loss assessment" into potential compensation.

Between 9 June and 16 June 2022, there were multiple calls and two analyst follow-ups from ReAssure.

On 16 June, Mr S provided evidence that Novia received ER/1 on 22 Dec 2021 and ER/2 on 20 Jan 2022 despite ReAssure previously claiming the transfers hadn’t occurred then.

On 5 July 2022, Mr S brought his complaint to TPO and on 26 July 2023, TPO asked ReAssure for its formal response to Mr S’ complaint.

On 27 July 2023, ReAssure sent TPO its formal response to Mr S’ complaint along with copies of its complaint file.

Mr S commented on ReAssure’s formal response in September 2023 calling it an “unsatisfactory response” and set out his evidence.

Mr S then emailed TPO to confirm he was seeking compensation from ReAssure for the inherent tax liability he had in his pension fund and sent across evidence.

TPO asked ReAssure if it wanted to comment on Mr S’ additional points and ReAssure told TPO that its loss assessment letters confirmed there had been no actual financial loss.

The case was then passed over to the adjudicator to consider, who concluded that the complaint should be partly upheld.

TPO confirmed that ReAssure did not have a duty to protect Mr S from tax losses arising from him becoming a Spanish tax resident although he had made ReAssure aware of the issue he might have to address.

Instead, it explained that a pension scheme manager's scope of duty excludes protecting a member from taxes incurred because of a change in their tax residency.

However, the adjudicator said that ReAssure had acknowledged that there were delays in its administration and processing of Mr S’ transfers and to remedy the situation it had conducted a loss assessment.

It also found that Mr S had not suffered a financial loss because the total combined transfers for his policies had increased as a result of the delay and corresponding market fluctuations.

The adjudicator considered that ReAssure should pay Mr S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience its maladministration had caused him, less the £200 it had already paid him.

It decided on this as in in its opinion, the degree of non-financial injustice that Mr S had suffered due to ReAssure’s maladministration was significant because of ReAssure's poor level of service throughout the transfer process and the high number of telephone calls Mr S felt he needed to make to ReAssure before, and after his transfer.

Mr S did not accept the adjudicator’s opinion and the complaint was passed to deputy pensions ombudsman, Camilla Barry, to consider.

Barry agreed and said: “I find that Mr S has not suffered a financial loss because of the delays in transferring policy ER/1 and policy ER/2.

“I find that ReAssure’s maladministration and poor service caused Mr S significant distress and inconvenience.

“I note the number of telephone calls he made to ReAssure before and after the transfers of his policies.

“ReAssure has apologised and paid him £200 but I find that an award of £500 is appropriate recognition of the distress and inconvenience Mr S has suffered.

“Therefore, I partly uphold Mr S’ complaint.”

---