Stm International Pension Plan · CAS-51735-Y2S2

CAS-51735-Y2S2

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Miss I

Scheme STM International Pension Plan (the Plan)

Respondents London and Colonial Services Limited (LCS) Options UK Personal Pensions LLP (Options)

Outcome

Complaint summary

1 CAS-51735-Y2S2 Background information, including submissions from the parties

2 CAS-51735-Y2S2

Adjudicator’s first Opinion

LCS accepted the Adjudicator’s First Opinion, but Miss I did not.

Additional information and comments from Miss I

3 CAS-51735-Y2S2

Additional information from LCS

Adjudicator’s Second Opinion

4 CAS-51735-Y2S2

In response to the Second Opinion, on 7 May 2024 Miss I provided evidence that LCS had been made aware of her intention to appoint Swissential as her new adviser under the plan and submitted that, without an adviser, she would not have known what actions to take in relation to the management of the Investment Portfolio. She asked the Adjudicator to review the Second Opinion.

The Adjudicator considered Miss I’s new evidence but concluded that it did not change his view. He acknowledged that LCS had overlooked Miss I’s intention to appoint Swissential as her adviser, but this did not change the outcome of her complaint as it amounted to maladministration which he had already considered should be upheld.

The Adjudicator was not persuaded that the absence of an adviser would have had any bearing on the DFM’s ability to manage the Investment Portfolio on her behalf.

Miss I did not accept the Adjudicator’s Second Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Miss I provided her further comments which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note those of Miss I’s additional points that are not already addressed in the Second Opinion.

Miss I’s additional comments

Miss I is of the view that:-

31.1. The Second Opinion does not hold LCS accountable for its part in the maladministration of the transfer.

31.2. She questions how the Plan could be considered closed when LCS still remained the legal owner of The Investment Portfolio, or how she could effectively manage a closed plan.

5 CAS-51735-Y2S2 31.3. LCS resorted to blaming everyone else involved in the transfer for problems relating to the Deed.

31.4. She could not have added another third party, the DFM, into an already convoluted situation.

31.5. Due to LCS' negligence, the Plan suffered a loss of £30,000, although she is seeking compensation of £10,000.

Ombudsman’s decision

Although confusing and unhelpful, LCS’ statement regarding closure of the Plan in November 2019, which was made in error, could not have impacted Miss I’s view of her ability to manage the Plan prior to completion of the transfer, as the statement about closure was not made until after the transfer had concluded.

Similarly, while I understand Miss I’s frustration, if she had serious concerns at the time of the transfer about the performance of the Investment Portfolio, she could have asked questions about how those concerns could be addressed or mitigated. Furthermore, as LCS pointed out, the Investment Portfolio was not out of the market in that period and Miss I was not prevented from making changes to it. She could also have appointed DFM (although it is not clear what the outcome, from an investment growth perspective, that would have resulted in)

Therefore, in my view, LCS cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of potential investment growth, for which I in any event note that Miss I was unable to provide any supporting evidence.

I partly uphold Miss I’s complaint.

Directions

6 CAS-51735-Y2S2

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman

18 June 2024

7