Phoenix Life Personal Pension · CAS-40379-N1V1

CAS-40379-N1V1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr T

Scheme Phoenix Life Personal Pension (the Plan)

Respondents Phoenix Life Limited (Phoenix)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mr T has complained that Phoenix wrongly permitted a transfer of his benefits under the Plan to the Optimum Retirement Benefit Plan (the Optimum Scheme). Mr T is concerned that, as a consequence, all his pension funds have been lost. He would like to be put back into the position he would have been in had Phoenix not allowed the transfer.

Background information, including submissions from the parties CAS-40379-N1V1

2 CAS-40379-N1V1

Adjudicator’s Opinion

3 CAS-40379-N1V1

4 CAS-40379-N1V1

5 CAS-40379-N1V1

6 CAS-40379-N1V1 Ombudsman’s decision I acknowledge that Mr T says he cannot recall having received the Scorpion leaflet, or a similar alternative. The events he is complaining about took place some years previously and there would have been a number of documents issued to him as part of the transfer pack, so it may be that he has forgotten this particular leaflet. Furthermore, he has said that he left all the paperwork to his cousin to deal with so I accept it is possible that he was not shown this document.

But I cannot hold Phoenix to account for how Mr T chose to manage his own affairs. I can only consider what is more likely than not to have happened based on the evidence available. In this instance, the footnote to the letter clearly indicates that a Scorpion leaflet, or its equivalent, was provided as part of the pack issued to Mr T and if this was withheld from him that is not something for which Phoenix can be held responsible. Further, as the Adjudicator has pointed out, it would have appeared to Phoenix at the time that Mr T was being advised by an FCA regulated firm of some years’ standing so that Phoenix would have reasonably expected such a firm to ensure that it dealt with its clients in an appropriate manner, regardless of its specific permissions.

I note the distinction made between the circumstances of the Hughes v Royal London case and those applicable here, but that distinction is to miss the point. The effect of the Hughes case is that it effectively did away with the link between the applicant’s earnings and the sponsoring employer of the receiving scheme, regardless of the type of scheme involved.

I sympathise with Mr T and the position he now finds himself in, but I have to consider the situation as it was presented to Phoenix at the time. Mr T had a statutory right to transfer his benefits from the Plan and he appeared to be dealing with an FCA regulated firm. Phoenix was expected to consider the information and decide if there was a legitimate reason to refuse the transfer. It did so and concluded there was nothing to indicate anything untoward. This was a reasonable conclusion in the circumstances. I cannot apply the benefit of hindsight to the situation.

I do not uphold Mr T’s complaint.

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 16 August 2023

7