ABM Financial Management Limited · DRN-6228122

The complaint The estate of Ms D complains that ABM Financial Management Limited (ABM) provided Ms D with unsuitable advice in 2015. And that this caused a financial loss. What happened Ms D had a pension with a provider I’ll refer to as provider R. In May 2015, it had a fund value of around £51K. I understand that Ms D contacted provider R to access her pension. And that provider R advised her to seek financial advice to look at her options. I also understand that Ms D then approached ABM for that advice. ABM requested information about Ms D’s pension with provider R. It then had three meetings with Ms D between 1 May 2015 and 28 May 2015. It completed a full fact find during the initial meeting. It said at the time of the advice, Ms D lived in rented accommodation and was unemployed. She was aged 56, single, and had no children. She had £9K in savings. Her income came from state benefits. She currently received £520 each month and had monthly expenditure of around £400. ABM’s notes from the meetings recorded that Ms D wanted to take her pension now. And that she wanted to use it to take £6K in tax-free cash. And then use the remainder to purchase a level, single life annuity with a five-year guarantee. They also recorded that a charity I’ll refer to as charity CF looked after Ms D’s state benefits for her. Charity CF received the benefits and then managed that money so that Ms D paid all her bills. It then paid her a net amount of £120 each week. The notes said although Ms D had problems paying bills and managing her money, she had full capacity. They also said that a representative from social services attended the meeting at ABM’s request due to Ms D’s issues managing money and its: “concerns regarding capacity.” ABM completed a suitability report for Ms D in May 2015. This said she needed a fixed regular income for her life. And that she was prepared to give up the capital required to achieve this. The report confirmed ABM’s verbal recommendations about Ms D’s retirement planning. It noted she wanted to take a tax-free lump sum of £6K. And then use the remaining funds to buy a fixed income stream throughout her life. The report detailed the disadvantages of an annuity purchase alongside its advantages, noting the capital would be lost on purchase. And stated that alternative solutions had been considered. The report noted that after the £3K adviser charge was deducted, around £42K would be used to buy a level, single life annuity guaranteed for five years. This would purchase an annual annuity with a provider I’ll refer to as annuity provider C of £2,512.08. The report also noted that the annuity had been enhanced due to Ms D’s current poor health. And said that the annual annuity income offered from provider R was £1802.40. Ms D accepted the advice. Her annuity began on 5 June 2015. She sadly died in 2023. Her

-- 1 of 5 --

annuity then ceased. The estate of Ms D wrote to annuity provider C on 22 August 2025 to complain about the advice. Annuity provider C passed on the complaint to ABM. ABM acknowledged the complaint on 11 September 2025. The estate of Ms D brought the complaint to this service. It felt that Ms D’s pension with provider R had met her needs. And that ABM’s advice had been unsuitable. It said Ms D had been mentally disabled and vulnerable. It was therefore concerned that she wouldn’t have fully understood how the annuity worked at the time of the advice. It also felt that Ms D wouldn’t have understood that the annuity would cease on her death unless she added a second name. ABM issued its final response to the complaint on 3 October 2025. It felt it’d looked after Ms D’s best interests and hadn’t done anything wrong. ABM said that Ms D made it aware on her initial request for advice that charity CF helped her with her money. It said it had conversations at the time with different agencies to ensure that Ms D had capacity to make her own decisions. It also asked a key worker to attend the meeting with Ms D, which she did. ABM said that the key worker said that Ms D was able to make her own decisions about how her pension was used. And that Ms D, charity CF and the key worker had confirmed that there was no power of attorney in place. ABM said that Ms D had wanted to access her pension to provide herself with an increased annual income guaranteed for her life. And that she also wanted to take £6K in tax-free cash to improve her home. It said Ms D had lived by herself and was helped by charity CF. And that as she wasn’t married and had no children, a single life annuity was appropriate as it would provide the biggest income. It also said that Ms D didn’t want an increasing life annuity as this would reduce the initial annual annuity. ABM said it explained the options Ms D had, noting that her benefits could be affected if she accessed her pension. It said it’d agreed to look at an open market option annuity as this would give Ms D a higher annual annuity than that offered by provider R. It said it made her aware that if she took an annuity, it couldn’t be changed. ABM then recommended annuity provider C which offered an annual impaired life annuity of £2,512.08. It said this was £709.68 more each year than the annuity offered by provider R, after Ms D had taken £6K tax-free cash and paid the £3K advice charge through her pension. The estate of Ms D wasn’t happy with ABM’s response. It felt ABM had taken advantage of Ms D. And felt that the unsuitable advice had caused her estate to be worth substantially less that what it should’ve been. It felt she’d lost £51K. Our investigator first considered whether the complaint was one this service could consider. He did this because in its final response, ABM had said that it thought the complaint was made outside of the “six and three” time limits we must follow. Our investigator noted that the complaint was about the sale of the annuity in 2015, which had taken place more than six years before the complaint had been referred to this service in September 2025. But he felt that the “trigger” for the three-year time limit was Ms D’s death in July 2023. He felt it was only at this point, when the annuity ceased, that there was any cause for concern over the original advice. As such, he was satisfied that the complaint had been brought within three years of the “trigger.” And was therefore one this service could consider.

-- 2 of 5 --

Our investigator went on to consider the suitability of the advice. For the following reasons, he felt the advice had been suitable and that ABM had managed it appropriately. • While acknowledging Ms D’s vulnerabilities, he felt the fact that a key worker had been present at the advice meetings – at ABM’s request - acted to mitigate concerns that ABM had pressured Ms D to make a decision she didn’t have the capacity to make. • He also felt that the advice was suitable for Ms D. This was because she’d been unemployed and solely reliant on state benefits at the time of the advice. And given her poor health, he felt it was unrealistic to think she would gain full-time employment again. As such, he felt that Ms D’s only realistic option to achieve her objective of a higher monthly income was to follow the advice. He felt ABM had clearly explained the various risks and the advantages and disadvantages of an annuity. And that it’d taken steps to confirm Ms D’s understanding of those with a key worker present before she purchased her annuity. • Our investigator also noted that Ms D didn’t have any financial dependents. Her focus had been to maximise her own monthly income, while providing some protection through a guarantee period. He noted that a joint life annuity would’ve significantly reduced the income she would’ve received. So wouldn’t have met her primary objectives. He also noted that while Ms D could’ve left her pension un- accessed, she wouldn’t have been able to meet her objectives. And that other options for accessing her pension would’ve been more complex and harder for her to manage. The estate of Ms D provided medical records for Ms D. It felt these showed that she was vulnerable and suggestible and that she would’ve needed considerable support to purchase a financial product. It felt this would’ve been obvious to anyone who met Ms D, which ABM clearly had. It asked if this service could be confident that Ms D hadn’t been coerced, persuaded, or tricked into buying a financial product which she didn’t understand. It also said that Ms D wouldn’t have known what effect the various terms and conditions of the recommended financial product could have. And that she wouldn’t have understood how an annuity worked, or that a single life annuity would stop paying benefits when she died. Our investigator considered the points the estate of Ms D had made. And the medical evidence provided. But he didn’t change his view. He felt ABM had provided Ms D with adequate support and consideration to her capacity. And that it’d provided advice suitable for her circumstances and objectives. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has come to me for a review. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’m not going to uphold it, for largely the same reasons as our investigator. I’ll explain the reasons for my decision. I first want to confirm that I agree with our investigator – and for the same reasons – that the complaint was brought to this service within the time limits which we must follow. I considered whether ABM considered Ms D’s vulnerabilities when it provided the advice.

-- 3 of 5 --

Did ABM take Ms D’s vulnerabilities into account? The estate of Ms D felt ABM had taken advantage of Ms D. It said the medical evidence confirmed she was vulnerable and easily suggestible. And that this would’ve been obvious to anyone who met Ms D, as ABM had. I’ve therefore considered the steps ABM took to make sure Ms D understood the advice and the decisions she made. I acknowledge that the medical evidence shows Ms D had medical problems. So I’m pleased to see that once she’d approached ABM for advice, it contacted the different agencies she was connected with so that it could ensure that she had capacity to make her own decisions. I’m also pleased to see that it asked a key worker to attend the advice meeting. And it checked with charity CF, the key worker, and Ms D that there was no power of attorney in place. ABM told this service that charity CF had confirmed both during a call and within the meeting that Ms D had capacity. It has also provided evidence which showed that Ms D had contacted provider R to arrange a payment holiday. It felt – and I agree – that this showed both capacity and a level of knowledge about her pension. In addition, ABM provided evidence that annuity provider C had provided detailed annuity information to Ms D more than once at her request. It again felt that this showed Ms D had a level of understanding of her annuity. Based on the evidence, I’m satisfied that ABM didn’t take advantage of Ms D or try to exploit the issues she’d faced. The estate of Ms D also said that Ms D wouldn’t have understood how an annuity worked, or that a single life annuity would stop on her death. I’ve gone on to consider this point. ABM provided this service with some of the further information it’d used to confirm Ms D had the capacity to make her own decisions about whether and how to access her provider R pension. This information also showed that Ms D had a level of understanding about her annuity and how it worked. Based on all the evidence provided, I’m persuaded that Ms D was able to make her own decision about accessing her pension. And that she understood the annuity she’d decided to purchase. And that it would stop on her death. I’m therefore satisfied that ABM did take Ms D’s vulnerabilities into account. And that it took reasonable steps to ensure she understood its recommendations before she went ahead with her chosen option. I went on to consider whether the advice was suitable. Was the advice suitable? The estate of Ms D felt that Ms D’s pension with provider R had met her needs. And that ABM’s advice had been unsuitable. It felt the unsuitable advice had led to her estate suffering a financial loss. I agree with our investigator that it was reasonable for ABM to recommend Ms D used her pension with provider R to purchase an annuity. I say this because the annuity met her income needs. And I’m not persuaded that any of the other access options open to Ms D at the time of the advice would’ve met her objectives better. I’m also pleased to see that ABM advised Ms D to purchase an annuity which considered her health issues and was therefore enhanced. As our investigator noted, it seemed that Ms D’s only realistic option for increasing her income was to access her provider R pension. Therefore I’m satisfied that she did need to access it in some way. And I agree that buying an annuity was the least complex method

-- 4 of 5 --

available to meet that objective. As I noted earlier, ABM took reasonable steps to ensure Ms D understood the advantages and disadvantages of buying an annuity. Its notes from the time of the advice recorded that she understood her capital would be lost once she’d made the purchase. And as she was single and had no dependants - and had a primary objective to increase her monthly income - a level, single life annuity would provide her with the highest monthly income. While I acknowledge that the estate of Ms D has doubts that Ms D understood how the annuity worked, I’m not persuaded that this was the case. I’m satisfied that the advice was suitable for Ms D’s circumstances and objectives. I therefore don’t uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons explained above, I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Ms D to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Jo Occleshaw Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --