Pensions Ombudsman determination

Ethika Auto Enrolment Pension Scheme · CAS-30803-J2G8

Complaint not upheld2020
Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

Verbatim text of this Pensions Ombudsman determination. Sourced directly from the Pensions Ombudsman published register. The Pensions Ombudsman is a statutory tribunal — its determinations are public record. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase.

Full determination

CAS-30803-J2G8

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme Ethika Auto Enrolment Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent Warwick & Eaton Administrators Limited (Warwick & Eaton)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-30803-J2G8

Adjudicator’s Opinion

• While Mr S’ experience has been frustrating, the exchange of correspondence shows that Warwick & Eaton responded and assisted him appropriately, and in a reasonable timeframe throughout.

• At the point Dalriada was appointed, Warwick & Eaton was instructed not to communicate with Mr S. However, that was on the direction of Dalriada and not within Warwick & Eaton’s control. In any event, this has not caused Mr S a financial loss.

1 https://www.dalriadatrustees.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-Ethika-Chairmans-Statement.pdf 2 CAS-30803-J2G8 • Mr S’ inability to transfer or receive a transfer value stems from Dalriada’s embargo on transfers and valuations. This is a result of Dalriada’s uncertainty over the value of the Scheme’s assets, explained in the Chairman’s statement of 31 December 2019. This is outside Warwick & Eaton’s control.

• While the directorship links between Warwick & Eaton and the previous Trustee, Barclay Cavendish are acknowledged, Warwick & Eaton was not legally responsible for the investment choices made by the previous Trustee, and are not accountable for failings on the part of the former Trustee. Warwick & Eaton provided administration services to the Scheme and appear to have provided them adequately in respect of Mr S’ pension benefits.

Mr S did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr S provided his further comments which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and I will therefore only respond to the main points made by Mr S for completeness.

Ombudsman’s decision

3 CAS-30803-J2G8

I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 7 April 2020

4