InvestAcc Pension Administration Limited · DRN-6033634

The complaint Mr J complains about InvestAcc Pension Administration Limited (InvestAcc). He’s unhappy it won’t allow him to transfer the proceeds of a Defined Benefit final salary pension scheme (DB scheme) to his Investacc Self-Invested Pension Plan (SIPP) without taking financial advice and receiving a positive recommendation. What happened The facts and chronology of this complaint are known to both parties and don’t appear to be in dispute, so I won’t detail every event or communication here. However, I can confirm I’ve read and considered everything that’s been provided by both parties. Mr J’s DB scheme is worth around £20,000. In February 2024, he approached InvestAcc, asking what was required to transfer of the proceeds of his DB scheme to his SIPP. InvestAcc said that, amongst other things, it required a form to be completed and signed by a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) authorised financial adviser who’d provided a positive recommendation for the proposed transfer. As a former financial adviser who’d recently retired, Mr J completed the relevant form with his own details and returned it to InvestAcc. InvestAcc used the FCA register to check the information Mr J had provided. But having discovered that Mr J was no longer an authorised financial adviser, InvestAcc confirmed that it couldn’t accept his DB transfer without a positive recommendation from an adviser who was currently authorised. Mr J explained that although recently retired, he’d been a senior partner at a well-known pension provider when he completed InvestAcc’s forms. Having been a financial adviser for over 25 years, he asked InvestAcc to reconsider its position on its requirements for his DB transfer. If it didn’t, he said InvestAcc was effectively making him pay adviser fees for advice on a decision he could make himself. InvestAcc responded noting that it was a legal and regulatory requirement for those with DB benefits to get regulated financial advice before transferring would be allowed by the ceding scheme. And it confirmed that its own position was that a positive recommendation was required before any DB transfer to it could happen. It noted that the FCA was aware of this and said it wouldn’t be changing its position. Mr J asked InvestAcc to clarify what regulation it was referring to, noting that the FCA had stated that the requirement for advice only applied to DB schemes valued at over £30,000. As Mr J’s scheme was only worth £22,000, he said this requirement didn’t apply. InvestAcc confirmed that its position reflected its company policy to extend the safeguard which legislation requiring advice for DB transfers over £30,000 provided. It explained that its requirements were confirmed in its application forms and non-negotiable.

-- 1 of 3 --

Following this, Mr J complained to our Service. Because InvestAcc hadn’t had an opportunity to consider the complaint, it was given time to issue a final response. InvestAcc didn’t uphold Mr J’s complaint and maintained that the position it had taken on the advice requirement and Mr J’s DB transfer was fair. As Mr J remained unhappy, his complaint was considered by one of our Investigators. She didn’t think InvestAcc had done anything wrong. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’m sorry to say that based on what I’ve seen, and despite my sympathy for the situation Mr J finds himself in, I’m not upholding this complaint. I’ll explain why. I’ve taken serious note of all the correspondence and arguments made by the parties involved in this case, however the informal nature of our Service means that I’ve limited my response to what I consider to be the issue central to this complaint. That is to say: • Whether InvestAcc has done anything wrong by requiring Mr J to get a positive recommendation from a regulated financial adviser before it accepts his DB transfer. As I understand it, Mr J wants to transfer the proceeds of his DB scheme into his existing SIPP so he can make his own decisions about how these funds are invested. He also wants to maximise his retirement income through consolidation. Given how long Mr J says he’s worked as a financial adviser, and his “small” DB scheme not being a “vital” part of his retirement planning, his reluctance to pay for advice is understandable. As he’s explained, advice fees would reduce the value of his DB scheme and mean he was paying for advice on something he could decide himself. Because of this, he’d like InvestAcc to waive its advice requirement and accept his DB transfer. When considering Mr J’s request and InvestAcc’s requirements, I think providing some context for the latter is helpful. In April 2015, pension legislation came into force which allowed pension scheme members to take all their pensions as a cash lump sum. Many pension contracts contained valuable benefits (referred to as safeguarded benefits) that would be lost on transfer or when taken as a cash lump sum. So, to protect scheme members from losing valuable pension benefits, the legislation also required pension members whose pension policies had safeguarded benefits valued at more than £30,000 to take financial advice before they could transfer their pension scheme elsewhere. This was to ensure that pension scheme members were fully informed before they decided to transfer a pension scheme which contained safeguarded benefits. As InvestAcc acknowledges, there’s no legal requirement for advice to be taken in Mr J’s specific situation as his fund is below the value limit. But while legislation was enabling, permitting providers to accept transfers without advice, it didn’t make this compulsory. So, receiving schemes like InvestAcc don’t have to allow DB transfers without advice if they

-- 2 of 3 --

don’t want to. InvestAcc is entitled to set out the basis on which it will do business. So, it’s not unreasonable for it to set conditions for the type of business it is willing to accept. InvestAcc has done this in its Compliance and Business Risk Management Plan which I understand has been provided to the FCA. It’s important to note that how firms go about carrying out pension transfer business is still tightly regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The regulator’s position on DB transfers is set out in the FCA’s Handbook and Conduct of Business Rules (COBS). Under 19.1.6 the COBS rules say: “a firm should start by assuming that a transfer (…) will not be suitable. A firm should only consider a transfer (…) to be suitable if it can clearly demonstrate, on contemporary evidence, that the transfer, (…) is in the retail client’s best interests.” The FCA goes on to outline its expectations for firms arranging transfers without making a personal recommendation under COBS 19.1.7. Based on what I’ve seen, InvestAcc’s policy on DB transfers is informed by relevant pension legislation and regulation which seeks to protect and ensure DB scheme members fully understand the implications of a proposed transfer. Unfortunately, there can be risks associated with this (even when the benefits aren’t worth as much as £30,000), so I’m satisfied InvestAcc has legitimately taken the view that it can best safeguard against these by ensuring that any DB transfer applications it receives are only accepted if a positive recommendation to transfer is given by an FCA authorised adviser. I don’t think this is unreasonable. I understand Mr J doesn’t think there’s any value for him in taking advice. He’s already decided what he wants to do and doesn’t think his choice is a risky one. I also appreciate that this isn’t an ideal situation, given the cost and difficulty accessing the required advice. But I can’t reasonably say InvestAcc has acted unfairly. It treats all its policyholders in the same position as Mr J the same. And it has done so for what I consider to be reasonable reasons. Having considered everything, I don’t think InvestAcc has done anything wrong in taking the commercial decision not to accept DB transfers without a positive recommendation from a financial adviser. As I’ve said, I think that its policy to obtain advice is in the interest of their customers and offers added protection when making an important decision. While I don’t doubt Mr J’s strength of feeling on the matter, or the sincerity with which he brings his complaint, I’m afraid I don’t uphold this complaint. My final decision I do not uphold Mr J’s complaint about InvestAcc’s requirement for advice. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 30 April 2026. Chillel Bailey Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --