Aegon Self Invested Personal Pension · CAS-99055-P5C7

CAS-99055-P5C7

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme Aegon Self Invested Personal Pension (the SIPP)

Respondent Aegon plc (Aegon)

Outcome

Complaint Summary

To resolve this, Mr S has requested £12,000 to reflect the investment loss experienced when he was unable to access his account online.

Background The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the main points.

On 1 June 2017, Mr S took out the SIPP through a Financial Adviser (the IFA).

The SIPP had a stated retirement date of 18 April 2019.

On 29 April 2021, Mr S contacted Aegon by telephone because he was having issues accessing his online account. Aegon sent Mr S a link to reset his password but his attempts were unsuccessful. Instead, online access was set up account via the Aegon Retirement Choices (ARC) system and Mr S was emailed so that he could activate his online account.

On 11 May 2022, Mr S telephoned Aegon to establish why the value of the SIPP had dropped since he received his annual statement a few weeks earlier. An Aegon advisor explained that the value of his investments can go up as well as down and

1 CAS-99055-P5C7 informed him of his retirement options. Mr S explained that he was not “tech-savvy” and mentioned that he was unable to log into his online account but would attempt to again.

On 16 June 2022, Mr S telephoned Aegon because he was unable to access his online account. He said he had been sent an email regarding this a few weeks earlier, but was still unable to gain access. The Aegon representative confirmed that Mr S had activated his account and attempted to help him gain access using a temporary password. Mr S advised that he had mistyped the password and the Aegon representative said he would be sent an email about accessing his account.

On 7 July 2022, Mr S telephoned Aegon again because he had not received any correspondence following his last contact on 16 June 2022, and he was still unable to access his account. He also expressed his concerns about the drop in the value of his pension.

Aegon noted that Mr S did not have proficient IT skills, which contributed to his issues accessing his online account. The Aegon representative attempted to assist Mr S with accessing his account, however, Mr S was unable to activate the link or copy and paste it into his browser, so it was not successful. The Aegon representative informed Mr S that the issue would be raised internally.

On 29 September 2021, Mr S telephoned Aegon to discuss his retirement options. He requested the value of the SIPP and was advised that the current value was £62,009. Mr S expressed his concerns about the drop in the value of the funds within the SIPP and was informed that he could switch his investments if he was unhappy with the performance of the SIPP. Mr S requested to switch his funds to cash, and the Aegon representative sent an email to request the sale of the investments.

On 13 October 2022, Aegon switched Mr S' funds to cash. It confirmed that there was a delay in carrying out the disinvestment and stated that it would complete a loss assessment to calculate the value of the SIPP had the funds been switched to cash on 30 September 2022.

On the same day, Mr S raised a complaint with Aegon.

On 14 October 2022, Aegon sent Mr S a letter confirming that his funds had been switched to cash. It provided him with a statement that confirmed the value of the SIPP was £62,627.04.

Aegon agreed that there was a delay in processing Mr S' request to switch his funds to cash. It completed a loss assessment based on the fund value as of 30 September 2022. It also offered redress of £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

On 28 October 2022, Aegon paid £1,236.53 into the SIPP in light of the investment loss Mr S experienced when it delayed switching the funds to cash.

On 7 December 2022, Mr S telephoned Aegon stating that he was unable to access his online account. 2 CAS-99055-P5C7 On 29 December 2022, Aegon responded to Mr S’ complaint. It acknowledged that it could have provided Mr S with better service when he was unable to log into his online account. However, it was unable to consider a financial loss based on a hypothetical situation.

On 3 January 2023, Mr S brought his complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

On 2 February 2023, Aegon increased its redress offer to £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused and reconfirmed it was unable to consider financial loss based on a hypothetical situation.

On 24 June 2025, TPO contacted Mr S to discuss accessing his account. Mr S reconfirmed that he was not “computer savvy” and was still experiencing issues logging into his account, despite previously gaining access. On the same day, he contacted Aegon and was able to access his account with assistance.

Summary of Ms S’ position:-

• He could not log into his online account, despite several telephone calls to Aegon.

• He would like Aegon to pay him £12,000 due to the drop in the value of his pension during the period he was unable to access his online account.

Summary of Aegon’s position:-

• Mr S was invested in the Aegon Mercer Balanced Investment Approach Retirement fund, which was chosen for him by his employer when the SIPP was set up. He had the option to switch funds as outlined in section 7.5 of the terms and conditions.

• The log in process seemed to fail because of something Mr S had done wrong during the registration/log in process rather than a technical issue. Mr S was not able to access the website or reset his password.

• Its systems show that the account was verified in June 2017, activated in April 2021, and activated again in July 2022.

• Mr S’ account was operated via its online platform, and it sent annual statements to his online account including on 19 June 2018, 18 June 2019, 18 June 2020, 30 April 2021, 25 June 2021, 23 June 2022 and 21 June 2023.

• Fixed interest and equity markets had a turbulent year in 2022, due to the invasion of Ukraine, rising global inflation, the global monetary response and UK political instability accompanied by fiscal policy changes.

• It does not contact customers when there are falls in the financial markets that impact investments. It is the member’s responsibility to monitor performance, and it is not liable for the fall in his investments during 2022.

3 CAS-99055-P5C7 • It accepted that it is liable for delaying the disinvestment to cash and has compensated Mr S for this. It also offered £800 redress for the delay when switching the funds to cash and the service he received during the telephone calls he made in 2022 regarding his online account access.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

“7.2 How your investments are managed

We offer the ability to trade a range of investments, through the Service.

7.2.1 Within each of the product wrappers, we offer the facility to buy and sell allowable investments, which are a subset of the entire range available, through the Service. The specific range of allowable investments is determined by each of the product wrapper providers (or in the case of the SIPP, the trustee of the scheme) and also by any

4 CAS-99055-P5C7 permissibility criteria contained within relevant legislation and HMRC rules.

7.2.2 Details of all the investments we provide are available from your adviser or through the Service……

7.5 General information about buying and selling investments

Within each product wrapper, you can build a portfolio of investments from our investment universe. Once you, your adviser, or your discretionary fund manager has selected investments for you, we will act on those investment instructions.

7.5.1 Instructions to carry out investment transactions will be given by you (where you have access to do so), your adviser, or your discretionary fund manager or using the online Service. For investments that cannot be traded online or in exceptional circumstances where online services are not available, we will require an instruction offline. We will inform you where this is the case and how to give the instruction, which will depend on the particular investment.”

22 Mr S did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and the complaint was referred to me to consider. Mr S provided further comments in response to the Opinion. He said:-

5 CAS-99055-P5C7 23 I note the additional points raised by Mr S, but I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion that the complaint should not be upheld.

Ombudsman’s decision 24 Mr S’ complaint concerns the issues he experienced trying to log into his online account between April 2021 and October 2022. During this period, the value of the SIPP decreased due to market conditions.

25 There is no evidence to support that the issues Mr S experienced when attempting to log into his online account arose from maladministration caused by Aegon. There is also no evidence to suggest that there were any technical errors that prevented Mr S from logging into his online account. I am therefore satisfied that Mr S’ inability to log into his online account did not arise from maladministration caused by Aegon.

26 It is not uncommon for individuals to encounter problems when registering or logging into online accounts and while this is not ideal, the evidence does not support that this was caused by the actions of Aegon.

27 After reviewing the available evidence, Mr S was aware that the value of the SIPP had decreased in May 2022 and did not discuss switching the investments within the SIPP with Aegon until September 2022. Mr S could have taken reasonable steps if he was unhappy with the performance of the SIPP to update the funds by seeking guidance from Aegon about alternative investment strategies instead of waiting for access to his online account.

28 It is important to note that in common law, the duty to mitigate requires an individual to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimise potential losses. Mr S had a duty to mitigate any potential financial loss that could result from a failure to capitalise on the perceived investment opportunities that arose between April 2021 and October 2022.

29 There is no evidence to suggest that Mr S discussed adjustments to the funds in the SIPP until September 2022 when his funds were switched to cash, nor is there evidence that Mr S would have updated the funds in the SIPP if he had access to his online account, considering he was aware that the value of the SIPP was decreasing in May 2022.

30 It is Aegon’s responsibility to administer the SIPP; however, it is not authorised to provide financial advice. In failing to query the alternative options available, Mr S accepted any potential negative impact his inaction had on the funds in the SIPP and Aegon cannot be held liable for the investment loss he experienced due to turbulent market conditions.

31 Aegon acknowledged that it delayed switching Mr S’ funds to cash and completed a loss assessment to ensure that he had not been financially disadvantaged by the delay. It also offered redress of £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused, which is higher than I would award in this case.

6 CAS-99055-P5C7 I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint.

Camilla Barry

Pensions Ombudsman 19 February 2026

7