SIPP provider fails in application for judicial review of Financial Ombudsman decision on pension transfer in

In a decision which may seem rather harsh, a self-invested personal pension provider has been refused permission for a renewed application for judicial review regarding a Financial Ombudsman Service decision relating to a transfer into its SIPP.

FOS upheld an individual’s complaint where he had been cold-called by an unregulated company and told that he would receive a low-risk and increased retirement income if he transferred pension savings into investments of a business consisting of leases of storage units, held in a SIPP administered by Carey.

The investment was unsuccessful and the individual suffered a significant loss. His subsequent complaint to FOS alleged that Carey did not carry out sufficient due diligence before accepting business from the unregulated company. In upholding the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that Carey acted on an execution-only basis, but decided that it failed to carry out sufficient due diligence before accepting the business. Although Carey had no duty to advise the individual, it was not fair or reasonable for it to accept his application for the SIPP or the investment. The Ombudsman also decided that Carey should compensate the individual for his financial loss, together with an award of £500 for trouble and upset.
FOS found that if Carey had carried out background checks on directors of the unregulated company, it would have identified that one of them was subject to a FSA warning notice, and was not authorised to carry out regulated activities in the UK, including advising on investments.

Comment 

FOS is currently handling numerous complaints arising out of similar introductions, so this case is of wider significance. The Court recognised FOS' ability to exercise its wide discretion in reaching decisions in line with what is "fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case", and is a good example of the Court once again being reluctant to interfere with the FOS' internal processes and challenge ombudsman decisions without good reason.