London Colonial Self Invested Personal Pension · CAS-55809-Q1Q1

CAS-55809-Q1Q1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr N

Scheme London & Colonial Self-Invested Personal Pension (the SIPP)

Respondent London & Colonial Services Limited (L&C)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mr N’s complaint about L&C was regarding its poor service and delays in respect of the sale of one of the investments held in the SIPP, which were shares held in Strategic Placements Peasedown Limited (SPP Ltd).

Mr N stated this hindered his plan to close the SIPP and transfer its holdings to his chosen new provider. In his application to the Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) Mr N requested a refund of the annual management charges he had incurred.

Background information, including submissions from the parties In 2010 Mr N opened a London & Colonial Open pension, a type of Self Invested Personal Pension.

In August 2012, the SIPP purchased 10,000 shares in SPP Ltd at the price of £1 each.

L&C was acquired by the STM Group in 2016 and, later, Options UK Personal Pensions LLP (Options) became the administrator of the SIPP. I will refer solely to L&C throughout this Determination.

1 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

On 15 July 2019, Mr N emailed L&C with two instructions where he informed it that it should arrange the sale of two investments held in the SIPP that were being purchased from it by two different external parties. These were steps that followed the conclusion of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s (FOS) review of a separate complaint Mr N had referred to it.

One instruction stated the Fareham Land Investment (the FL Investment) was being purchased from the SIPP by Mr N’s financial adviser, Insight Financial Associates (Insight). The other instruction stated shares held in SPP Ltd (the SPP shares) were being purchased by Property Investor Partnership Limited (PIP). It is the latter transaction that is the subject of Mr N’s complaint.

While Insight and PIP were separate entities, they were connected by way of two common directors and one common majority shareholder.

On 22 July 2019, L&C emailed Mr N and confirmed the price of the FL Investment was £21,784. It also asked him for contact details at Insight. Mr N referred the email to Insight the same day, with L&C copied in and he also confirmed he was in agreement with the price.

On 6 August 2019, Insight responded to L&C and Mr N and stated it would be purchasing the FL Investment from the SIPP. It asked for the details of the steps required. In this email Insight also queried the matter of the SPP shares and it asked for a valuation of them.

Later the same day L&C emailed Insight with a Deed of Adherence and Transfer regarding the FL Investment (the Deed), for it to complete and return. It was explained that once received back, it would be forwarded to Sustainable Land Products Limited (SLP Ltd), for it to arrange the transfer of that investment. L&C explained that once that had been completed it would email Insight further with its bank details for it to arrange the transfer of the agreed amount, £21,784. With regards to the SPP shares, L&C explained it had asked SPP Ltd for the details of the value of them and confirmation of the same from its accountant.

On 9 September 2019, Insight posted the Deed back to L&C and it was received the next day. Insight’s covering letter asked for the details of the final agreement to be forwarded, so it could arrange the transfer of funds, once it had also received L&C’s bank details.

On 11 September 2019, L&C posted the Deed to SLP Ltd, and its covering letter asked for confirmation it had been received.

2 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

L&C has provided a copy of an email chain, which shows that on 20 September 2019, Insight emailed it to ask for an update on the FL Investment sale. A copy of any response that may have been issued at the time has not been submitted to TPO.

L&C has provided a copy of an email chain that shows SPP Ltd issued an email to it on 7 October 2019. The content of that email stated its purpose was to provide an attachment that was a letter dated 2 October 2019 drafted by Argentis Accountants and addressed to SPP Ltd confirming the value the SPP Ltd shares as £10,000 (the Valuation). In its submissions to TPO, L&C explained the Valuation was not however received at that time and it was instead received on 14 November 2019.

On 9 October 2019, L&C emailed SLP Ltd with a further copy of the Deed. It explained in this email that Mr N had informed it that the original posted copy had not been received, so it was being re-sent. The details of how or when Mr N provided this notification to L&C was not confirmed in any submissions made to TPO.

SLP Ltd responded to L&C the same day and confirmed receipt of the email and the next day emailed further and confirmed the SIPP had been removed as a partner in the FL investment and replaced with Insight.

On 25 October 2019, the amount of £21,784 was credited to the SIPP, effectively concluding the sale of the FL Investment.

On 14 November 2019, Mr N contacted L&C by telephone. L&C emailed him following this conversation later that day and provided an update on the purchase of the SPP shares. It was explained to Mr N that a valuation for these had been requested and that L&C hoped to have received this by the end of that week.

On the same day, L&C contacted SPP Ltd by telephone and then later that day, SPP Ltd emailed L&C to provide a further copy of the Valuation.

On 20 November 2019, Mr N contacted L&C further to request an update.

On 16 December 2019, L&C received an email from SPP Ltd with a Stock Transfer Form (the STF) attached, with a request for L&C to complete it for re-registration of the SPP shares to PIP.

On 6 January 2020, SPP Ltd emailed L&C with a further copy of the STF. It explained it had received contact from Insight, which followed L&C contacting it (Insight). The details of this contact made by L&C have not been provided to TPO.

3 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

On 10 January 2020, Mr N raised a complaint with L&C. A copy of the complaint has been provided to TPO, in the form of an internal email between L&C colleagues that explains the concerns Mr N raised in his telephone call to it. The relevant comments from this email are summarised below.

• Mr N would like to complain “…in regard to the continuous poor service he has received within the process of selling his Strategic Placements Peasedown Ltd shares”.

• Mr N had telephoned in December 2019 and was informed documents had been lost and would be re-issued the same day, but this did not happen.

• Mr N had called on a separate occasion and was promised a call back that day, but this call was not made.

On 16 January 2020, L&C emailed Mr N to explain it had contacted PIP by telephone, and the purchase price of the SPP shares had been confirmed as £10,000. It was requested that Mr N speak to PIP and then confirm back to L&C he was in agreement with the price. Mr N did exactly that later the same day.

The next day, L&C acknowledged receipt of Mr N’s email, and it indicated the matter would be passed to the relevant team to be progressed.

On 5 February 2020, Mr N emailed L&C to say he had been unable to get through to it on the telephone, and he requested an update.

On 7 February 2020, Mr N emailed L&C to raise a further complaint in respect of the poor service he was receiving. He explained that he was continually having to chase L&C for updates, had not been able to get through to it on the phone and had received no reply to his latest email sent two days earlier. Mr N also highlighted the matter had been going on for some time and that the “sale agreement” had already been lost.

On 12 February 2020, Mr N emailed the FOS to request its assistance in resolving the matter of the sale of the SPP shares. His email stated that PIP was at that point waiting for L&C to sign the documents that would allow the transfer of them. The FOS responded to him the same day and stated it had asked Insight to assist in the matter.

On 13 February 2020, Mr N spoke with L&C, and it informed him that it was not prepared to sign the documents regarding the transfer of the SPP shares until it had received the agreed amount of £10,000. L&C contacted SPP Ltd to remind it that it was awaiting monies on this day.

4 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

L&C explained that in this period there was some “conflict”, between its position and the position of SPP Ltd. L&C required receipt of funds before completing the relevant paperwork regarding the SPP shares. The position of SPP Ltd was that it would not release funds before it had received the completed paperwork (chiefly, the STF).

On 20 February 2020, as a compromise, L&C emailed SPP Ltd to provide a copy of the STF and explained it would send the completed version and other paperwork once monies were received.

On 24 February 2020, SPP Ltd issued funds to L&C and informed it of the same by email.

On 26 February 2020, the amount of £10,000 was applied to the SIPP. Then in early March 2020, all necessary and original paperwork was issued to SPP Ltd. This effectively concluded the sale of the SPP shares.

On 6 March 2020, L&C issued its response to Mr N’s complaint (the Complaint Response). It acknowledged it could have kept him better informed of the progress of the sale of the SPP shares but stated that it did not uphold his complaint because it did not cause the delays he experienced. The letter explained the events that occurred, which are as already set out in this Determination. It also made the following additional relevant points: -

• On 25 October 2019 the SIPP received funds in relation to the FL investment and L&C did not know why monies for the SPP shares were not transferred at the same time.

• L&C could not find any evidence to show the STF was received earlier than on 6 December 2019. Mr N had informed it this had been issued in November 2019.

• It was only appropriate for L&C to submit the STF to SPP Ltd after it had received the monies from PIP for the purchase of the SPP shares, so the SIPP did not potentially become liable for unauthorised tax charges. It had informed SPP Ltd of the same and was relying on a third party to make the payment and this was out of its control.

• It acknowledged that Mr N did email and call “on a few occasions”, but it stated that without funds it was unable to proceed.

5 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

• After it had contacted SPP Ltd on 13 February 2020, SPP Ltd responded to explain it required the STF and original investment certificate before monies could be issued. L&C subsequently emailed in reply to provide a copy of the STF and said it would send the completed STF and certificate once monies were received.

• L&C made “a number of requests and updates” during the process of the sale of the SPP shares. At no time did it hold on to documentation or delay the process.

• An apology was provided to Mr N and delays were acknowledged, but it was stated that these delays were not caused by anything L&C had or had not done.

On 16 March 2020, L&C received an instruction via Origo to arrange the full transfer of the SIPP in cash, to Mr N’s chosen new provider, Transact.

In May 2020, Mr N raised a complaint with L&C about the delay in the transfer of the SIPP (the Transfer Complaint).

On 27 July 2020, the SIPP incurred a Transfer Out fee of £186.

On 30 July 2020, the final transfer of cash from the SIPP to Transact was completed. The transfer of the SIPP was effectively concluded at this point.

On 10 May 2022, the FOS issued its Ombudsman Decision in respect of the Transfer Complaint. This specified the resolution L&C should carry out, in respect of that complaint and that included the completion of an assessment to determine any financial loss Mr N may have incurred. L&C shared the details of the outcome of its loss assessment with Mr N and later, on 6 December 2022, issued a further email to him to state it was satisfied the assessment had been completed in line with the instructions set out by the FOS and so, it considered the complaint closed.

L&C’s further submissions

6 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

Mr N’s further submissions

7 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

Adjudicator’s Opinion Mr N’s complaint was considered by one of our Adjudicators who concluded that L&C was responsible for periods of delay in sale of the SPP shares and it should pay Mr N £500 for non-financial injustice. The Adjudicator’s findings are summarised below: -

The Adjudicator went on to state that he would also not offer any comment in relation to the offer made by L&C in the Second Complaint Response which was to refund its transfer fee. That was because the offer was made in relation to the Transfer Complaint and it was not relevant to the complaint about the sale of the SPP shares. The Adjudicator said Mr N should contact L&C if he wished to accept that offer.

The Adjudicator highlighted that L&C confirmed Mr N’s instruction for it to take forward the sale of the SPP shares was received by it on 15 July 2019 and that there was no evidence to show it took any action before 6 August 2019. He noted that L&C had not provided the details of its normal service timescales and said that in his view, the transaction could have begun sooner and there was subsequently a delay that L&C were responsible for.

Similarly, the Adjudicator explained that no evidence had been provided by L&C that showed anything then occurred in relation to the sale of the SPP shares until 14 November 2019, when Mr N contacted it. That contact led to it contacting SPP Ltd and then the Valuation was re-sent.

The Adjudicator noted that L&C requested the Valuation on 6 August 2019, and it was waiting for this, but stated that because of the length of time between it being requested and received, L&C should have taken some action to follow up its request. So, he said this was a further delay that L&C were at least partly responsible for.

L&C stated in the Complaint Response that it had received the Valuation on 7 October 2019, but in its submissions to TPO confirmed the date was actually 14 November 2019. The Adjudicator accepted L&C’s position but stated it was not particularly relevant, due to the fact it should have followed up its request for the Valuation much earlier.

The Adjudicator also accepted that the STF had not been received at L&C until 16 December 2019 because no evidence had been provided to suggest it was issued to it earlier. He added, however, that this did not have any material relevance, given he had already established delays had occurred.

8 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

L&C had explained that when the STF was received, it was not prepared to issue the fully completed version of it until it was in receipt of funds. The Adjudicator agreed with L&C’s position but stated that this point would not have had any real bearing on whether the transaction could progress or not. That was because when L&C received the STF on 16 December 2019, the next stage in the process would have been to agree the price for the SPP shares and that this was a separate matter that first needed to happen.

The Adjudicator highlighted that it was not until 16 January 2020 that L&C contacted PIP and established the price was agreed and notified Mr N, who then contacted PIP himself and confirmed back to L&C that he too agreed with the price. The Adjudicator said that in his view this was a further delay caused by L&C because the Valuation had been received on 14 November 2019 and he could not identify any reason why the next step of agreeing the price could not have taken place earlier.

In view of the above point, the Adjudicator explained he did not agree with what L&C had stated in the Complaint Response letter. That was where it alluded to the fact the funds for the SPP shares might have been issued to it at the same time of the funds for the FL Investment being sent, on 25 October 2019. This was because at that point the Valuation had not been received and the sale price had not been agreed. In addition, it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest L&C had requested those funds should be issued to it.

The Adjudicator stated that the absence of the additional monies on 25 October 2019 would not have been a valid reason for L&C to not have taken matters forward. In addition, he said that

After the price was agreed on 16 January 2020, a compromise was reached between L&C and SPP Ltd to resolve the matter of the order in which the completed STF was provided, and funds were sent. The Adjudicator noted that while that issue may have been resolved sooner following the agreement of the sale price, he did not consider it to be a delay caused by L&C. His view was that it was instead a common consequence of different parties being involved in a transaction with each having its own separate requirements.

The Adjudicator recognised that the sale of the SPP shares involved a number of parties, would always have required time and that it was not always under the direct control of L&C. He said that it was his view however, that there were times where the transaction was under L&C’s control and it did not progress it or take any action to establish the position of it or its outstanding requests in a reasonable timeframe. He concluded that the periods of delay he had identified amounted to maladministration.

9 CAS-55809-Q1Q1 In terms of the resolution of Mr N’s complaint, the Adjudicator said that it was not appropriate to refund the charges Mr N had incurred. That was because it was not evident any charges had been applied incorrectly or that they would not have been applied if the sale of the SPP shares had concluded sooner

In addition, the Adjudicator explained there was no evidence to show Mr N had incurred any financial loss. He stated that the price agreed for the SPP shares was £10,000 and that there was nothing to suggest that this figure may have been different if the sale had been concluded sooner.

It was the Adjudicator’s view that an award of £500 should be made to Mr N for non- financial injustice, because of the significant distress and inconvenience he had suffered.

I have considered the comments provided by Mr N, but they do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

1 www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/publication/redress-non-financial-injustice

10 CAS-55809-Q1Q1

First, I find that the threshold for an award has been met.

Second, my awards for non-financial injustice will generally fall into one of the following five categories: nominal, significant, serious, severe and exceptional. The amounts range from nil where I consider distress and inconvenience to be nominal (and where an apology is often sufficient), to £2,000 where I consider it to be severe, or more only where it is considered to be exceptional.

I consider that the distress and inconvenience Mr N has experienced falls into the significant category. So, I find the existing offer of £500 to be appropriate. To be clear, this finding is made solely in relation to the complaint that was accepted for investigation, which was that about the sale of the SPP shares. I have not considered the circumstances of Mr N’s other complaints that are referenced in this Determination. While those complaints are also related to the closure of the SIPP in some way, they are separate matters.

I uphold Mr N’s complaint.

Directions

Dominic Harris Pensions Ombudsman 29 January 2026

11