James Hay Modular Isipp · CAS-57963-T5M1

CAS-57963-T5M1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr L

Scheme James Hay Modular iSIPP (the SIPP)

Respondent James Hay Partnership (James Hay)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mr L complained that he received a lower tax-free cash (TFC) lump sum than a representative of James Hay told him he would receive, and also that James Hay failed to send him cancellation rights after the lower value had been paid.

Mr L also complained about the processes implemented by James Hay when he requested access to his TFC lump sum, the subsequent delay in paying the TFC and the delays in dealing with his complaint.

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-57963-T5M1

2 CAS-57963-T5M1

Mr L’s position

3 CAS-57963-T5M1

4 CAS-57963-T5M1

5 CAS-57963-T5M1

It is not for the Ombudsman to maintain that the maker of a negligent representation is not bound. It is perverse not to uphold the complaint on this basis.

He has suffered a financial loss as he acted on the information he was given to his detriment. He does not accept that his actions in doing so were unreasonable.

Insufficient weight has been given to the complete history of the matter complained about and undue weight was given to the three-week delay after the eight-week deadline for James Hay to issue a response to the complaint.

Undue weight has been given to the SIPP illustration issued in November 2019, which was issued three-months before the SIPP Benefit payment was made. 6 CAS-57963-T5M1 The request for a form on 18 November 2019 is not tantamount to him having requested payment. No decision was based on the illustration issued in November 2019.

The conclusion that it was not reasonable for him to have relied on the incorrect information provided in the Call does not give sufficient weight to the clear representation made in the Call. The opinion reached that he could have queried this further is based on hindsight. It also gives insufficient weight to the fact that there was no need for him to query it further given the clear representation made in the Call and gives no weight to the fact that he could not get information or an explanation from James Hay. This was the precise reason why he had to complain to TPO in the first place.

No weight is given to the fact that the letter of 16 June 2020 giving cancellation rights was only issued because he had complained. It should also be noted that the 30-day notice of cancellation expired before any explanation had been received from James Hay.

He accepts that he knew that the amount received was not what was expected but it is not reasonable to conclude that he accepted the amount paid. Undue weight is given to the fact that he could have returned the TFC. The payment was received on 21 April 2020 and no substantive explanation for the calculation was received until three-months later on 21 July 2020. No weight is given to the fact that it was perfectly reasonable for him to assume that prior to receiving any explanation it was entirely possible that James Hay had made a simple error in its calculation, which could have been reversed.

Ombudsman’s decision

7 CAS-57963-T5M1

8 CAS-57963-T5M1

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 28 December 2022

9