ReAssure Limited · DRN-5729317

The complaint Mr W complains about unsuitable advice to transfer his defined benefit pension to ReAssure Limited. He also complains that since transferring his funds have not performed well, and he hasn’t been kept updated about his plan. What happened Mr W worked for British Steel between 1980-1989 and contributed to its pension scheme. Mr W recalls he was advised by a family friend to transfer his British Steel Pension Scheme (“BSPS”) defined benefit pension to a personal plan with a company called The Combined Insurance Company of America (“CICA”). Sometime afterwards CICA became part of Windsor Life. Windsor Life is now part of ReAssure Limited, so the complaint is against ReAssure. For ease of reading, I’ll mainly refer to ReAssure in the decision. Once transferred, the benefits from the scheme were paid into a PCP Protected Rights Module (ending *R1) and a Personal Plan Series 1 (*R2-14). In September 2007 Mr W transferred both plans, (R1 valued at around £22,646 and R2-14 around £19,333) from ReAssure to another provider I’ll refer to as “S”. In 2024 following media commentary about the potential mis-selling of transfers out of the BSPS Mr W tried to track down what had happened to his plan. ReAssure told Mr W that in April 2002 a contribution of around £2,271 (made up of protected and non-protected rights) was paid into his plan, but as there had been no further contributions it was unable to provide a transaction history to him. Mr W didn’t think this was satisfactory and complained. In October 2024 ReAssure responded to the complaint but didn’t uphold it. Its investigation had revealed Mr W had been advised to transfer the benefits of his BSPS to a personal pension in 1989. But that the advice had been reviewed as part of the industry wide Pension Review, while it was with Windsor Life. System records showed Mr W had opted in to the review, and that compensation had been offered which Mr W had signed to accept on 15 April 2002. So the payment of £2,271 was the top-up compensation which had been paid into a plan in Mr W’s name on 26 April 2002. The review had shown Mr W had suffered a loss by transferring out of the BSPS scheme, and so compensation had been offered, which would’ve included referral rights to the then regulator if he’d been dissatisfied. But as Mr W had accepted the compensation the regulator didn’t require ReAssure to revisit the matter again. The response included a screen shot of ReAssure’s system record showing the pension review information. Mr W also complained about the time it took for ReAssure to track down his policies and provide the information he requested, but those issues aren’t part of this decision. Mr W didn’t think it was fair that the redress had been calculated using assumptions which have subsequently proved to be inaccurate, and that he’s worse off than he would’ve been if he remained in his occupational scheme. So he referred his complaint to this service.

-- 1 of 4 --

One of our investigators considered the complaint but didn’t uphold it. He said ReAssure had provided evidence to show the advice to transfer to a personal pension had been reviewed as part of the industry-wide Pension Review, and that compensation had been offered which Mr W accepted in 2002. He acknowledged the assumptions used in the calculation didn’t reflect the actual investment returns. But as it would’ve been carried out in line with the regulator’s guidance from the time, we wouldn’t expect ReAssure to revisit it now. Mr W didn’t accept this, as he didn’t recall participating in the review, and the correspondence had been sent to an address where he hadn’t lived or been responsible for the Council Tax. The investigator said he couldn’t be sure where Mr W was living at the time, but on balance it was more likely Mr W had participated in the review and accepted the compensation, than someone else had done so without his knowledge. Mr W pointed out that ReAssure’s records showed it had written to him on another matter around the same time but had received no response. So he questioned why the investigator accepted he had responded to the pension review correspondence sent to the same address. As agreement couldn’t be reached, Mr W asked for an ombudsman’s decision, and the case has been passed to me. Your text here 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’ve reached the same conclusion as the investigator for broadly the same reasons. Let me explain why. I should first say that before considering the merits of any complaint I must first establish that it’s one we have the legal power to look at, in other words that it’s within the jurisdiction of this service. The rules which govern our service, which flow from legislation, specifically the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, known as the dispute resolution (“DISP”) rules are set out by the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority in its handbook. https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP Section 2 of the DISP rules set out the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service, including who can bring a complaint, the time limits which apply, and the range of things we can deal with. DISP 2.8.2R says that where the business doesn’t consent to our involvement, we cannot consider a complaint which has been referred (2) more than: (a) six years after the event complained of; The event being complained about is the advice to transfer Mr W’s occupational pension to a personal pension in 1989, which is clearly more than six years ago. But in this instance I don’t need to consider the time limits further, as ReAssure has consented to our investigation of the complaint The Pension Review was instigated by the then regulator, the Securities and Investment Board (“SIB”) to review pension business carried out by regulated firms between April 1988

-- 2 of 4 --

and June 1994. Mr W’s policy was identified as being eligible to be included in the review, so he was written to inviting him to participate. This process was to avoid consumers needing to complain to firms individually, and was prescribed, overseen and closely monitored by the SIB. Customers would receive an initial invitation with a questionnaire, and if they didn’t reply at least one chaser had to be sent. If they completed and returned the questionnaire their advice would be reviewed. If they didn’t respond to the invitation or the chaser they would be marked as a “non-responder”. We don’t have copies of the pension review correspondence, which was carried out while the policy was with Windsor Life. But ReAssure has provided the system records which I think are reasonably clear. These show Windsor Life included Mr W’s transfer in phase 2 of the review, which appears to fit, as phase 1 was for higher priority cases such as people who had died, were already accessing their pension, who had transferred out aged 50+ (for men), or opted out of an occupational scheme. The system doesn’t show when the initial invitation and any reminder was sent, or when Mr W returned the questionnaire. But Phase 2 invitation mailings with the questionnaire were typically conducted in early 1999, and requests to participate in the review had to be received by 31 March 2000. Firms were given a target completion date of June 2002, with the whole project wound up in 2004. We don’t have a copy of Mr W’s completed questionnaire, but we do have the template designed by the regulator which firms were required to send. This included twelve questions the individual would’ve needed to complete for the advice to be reviewed, including their personal information and details about their pension scheme, employment dates, and other personal circumstances. Mr W doesn’t recall responding to the pension review invitation, which isn’t surprising as it would’ve been more than twenty years ago, and memories can fade over time. But I think he must have completed and returned it, as the review couldn’t have been carried out without it. The database correctly records the scheme Mr W was a member of (BSPS), with the status as “questionnaire review complete”. On receipt of the investigator’s view, Mr W said that at the relevant time he didn’t live at the address the correspondence was sent to and provided a letter from his local authority which states he has never been held responsible for the Council Tax there. I can’t say for sure where Mr W was living at the time of the review, which spanned several years prior to 2002 when the redress was paid. But I think it’s likely he did receive and return the pension review invitation and questionnaire, otherwise he’d have been marked as a “non-responder”, and his advice wouldn’t have been reviewed. The regulator didn’t require firms to provide proof of postage, but they were required to keep robust records and had to report regularly on their progress. I don’t consider the lack of response to correspondence in April, June and July 2002 about a separate matter to be relevant. As it doesn’t prove those letters weren’t received by Mr W, just that he didn’t respond to them. If the pension review established that the advice to transfer was unsuitable, and it wasn’t possible for the consumer to be reinstated into their occupational scheme, firms were required to pay compensation by way of a lump sum pension contribution, to reflect the benefits the consumer lost by transferring. I think it’s more likely than not Mr W received the compensation offer and returned his signed acceptance, as the compensation was paid into a plan in his name. Many people who were written to as part of the pension review didn’t respond, and the firms’ records would’ve reflected that. I don’t consider it plausible that ReAssure would’ve paid compensation to someone who hadn’t participated in the pension review. Or that without Mr W’s consent and the provision of the necessary information ReAssure would’ve made a contribution into a “policy augmentation” plan established in Mr W’s name, which only he could benefit from.

-- 3 of 4 --

The calculation methodology including the standards and assumptions to be used, was set out by the SIB, and was subject to considerable oversight and sampling. These assumptions attempted to predict consumers’ losses by determining likely future investment returns and were periodically revised during the period of the review. Unfortunately, the investment growth rates anticipated at the time haven’t materialised, and this together with falling annuity rates has had an impact on the benefits provided by personal pensions. But that isn’t a reason to ask ReAssure to review the matter again, as the assumptions and predictions firms were required to use in the calculations were considered reasonable at the time. And it’s important to note that the regulator intended the Pension Review exercise to draw a line under the matter and restore confidence in the pension industry. So if a policy was reviewed under this process, whether it revealed the consumer had made a loss or not, the business was not required to review it again. I appreciate this is unsatisfactory for Mr W, and he’d at least have liked to see the copy correspondence to confirm he participated in the review. But I’m satisfied the system evidence does support that he did. And compensation was paid into a new pension plan which aimed over time to generate returns to match the benefits he lost by transferring. This may have proved to have fallen short, but as I’ve no reason to think the review wasn’t carried out in line with the regulator’s expectations at the time, I’m not going to ask ReAssure to do anything more now. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 29 August 2025. Sarah Milne Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --