Santander Uk Group Pension Scheme · CAS-32468-H7M3

CAS-32468-H7M3

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme Santander (UK) Group Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents JLT Benefit Solutions Ltd (JLT) Trustees of the Santander (UK) Group Pension Scheme (the Trustee)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties CAS-32468-H7M3

2 CAS-32468-H7M3

3 CAS-32468-H7M3

Adjudicator’s Opinion

4 CAS-32468-H7M3

5 CAS-32468-H7M3 JLT accepted the Adjudicator’s Opinion and carried out the loss assessment. This indicated that similar funds would not have performed as well as the Pre-Retirement Fund. While Mr S broadly accepted the Adjudicator’s Opinion, he did not agree with JLT’s loss assessment results. So, the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr Y’s further comments are summarised below:-

• Had he been made aware that he had switched to the Pre-Retirement Fund, he “could” have done many things such as left his benefits where they were, picked a different fund or switched out to another investment provider.

• The rationale behind using a proxy was that he did not know which fund the ‘Gilt Fund’ was. So, he was in fact claiming that JLT should cover the difference between (a) the growth in Pre-Retirement Fund from January to October 2016 and (b) the Gilt Fund over the same period.

• After further exchanges, Mr S said that if he had known that the Gilt Fund was not available, he would have sought the same fund in another pension and substituted. This was because he specifically wanted an index-linked fund due to the economic climate at the time.

• Proving whether the Gilt Fund was available during 2016 would be difficult as his pension providers change the funds they offer over time and historical options are not readily available. Further, he had recently amalgamated various pension funds into a SIPP. However, given that the Gilt Fund currently had approximately £4.5 billion invested in it, it was not exclusive to JLT and readily available to the wider market. Given that he had a Legal & General pension, as well as various trading wrappers, he may have had access to the Gilt Fund via those.

• He had spent a number of years trying to resolve this complaint. So, if he had not felt that there was an injustice here, he would have accepted one of JLT’s earlier offers.

I note the additional points raised by Mr S, but I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

6 CAS-32468-H7M3

I uphold Mr S’ complaint against JLT in respect of its maladministration.

Directions

7 CAS-32468-H7M3

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 6 October 2020

8