The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against Planning Together and James Hay Partnership for delays in earmarking, investing and transferring the complainant's pension.

‘Mr N’ had complained about the length of time it took for the pension scheme to be earmarked, the non-investment of his funds, and the delayed transfer to another pension provider.

Mr N agreed to the investment of funds on 16 March 2016, however due to delays in earmarking the funds by James Hay, this was not completed.

He also requested a transfer to a new provider on 28 September 2018 which was not completed until 20 December, with James Hay stating that this took “longer than it ought to have”.

James Hay Partnership has been ordered to pay £1000 in respect of the “serious distress” and inconvenience caused to Mr N, and to refund his transfer out fee. TPO have also ordered Planning Together to pay £1,000 to account for any distress.

An adjudicator initially recommended that Planning Together also accommodate for investment loss by paying interest at the base rate for the period of time in question (12 April 2016 to 11 December 2017).

Commenting on this in the decision, Pensions Ombudsman Anthony Arter, stated: “I am not satisfied that this is appropriate redresss for investment loss…A financial adviser would not realistically recommend an individual invest an entire portfolio in a fund that only provided base level returns”.

TPO has now ordered to the firm to calculate Mr N’s investment loss in accordance with its’ model portfolio structure, which was based on Mr N’s risk profile, emphasising that this solution would more “accurately” reflect his position.

Planning Together argued that the proposed redress would benefit from hindsight, that an instruction to invest would not have been possible immediately but rather would have taken a two month period, and also that the investment funds would not have been bought into, in full, immediately.

TPO disagreed with the assertion that the redress would benefit from hindsight and stated a shorter estimated investment start date of one month, to be calculated from Mr N’s confirmation of the investment on 16 March 2016.

TPO also stated that it could not find James Hay responsible for the lack of investment as it has no power to recommend or make investments on Mr N’s behalf.

Commenting on this, Arter said: “Although, the earmarking and transfer took an excessive period to complete, this is adequately redressed through the distress and inconvenience payment and refunded transfer out fee.”

Share Story: