Hogg Robinson 1987 Pension Scheme · CAS-30511-T8M5

CAS-30511-T8M5

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr R

Scheme Hogg Robinson (1987) Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents Hogg Robinson Pension Scheme Limited (the Trustee) Xafinity

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-30511-T8M5

• Xafinity’s response time to the first set of queries it received from HDC was slower than the Trustee would have liked. However, the time limit on the September CETV did not start to run until Xafinity had sent that quotation.

• It was the difference between the September CETV and the January CETV that was the issue.

• The response to the two subsequent sets of queries from HDC were answered by 21 November 2016. This was more than three weeks before the expiry of the September CETV.

• The bulk of the information which HDC had requested was provided at the outset, including all the statutory CETV information. The subsequent queries could have been raised earlier as they did not appear to have related to, or followed on from, the answers to the initial information.

Summary of the Trustee’s comments in relation to CETVs

• The CETV guarantee period of three months is a statutory time period. It is set by legislation and not controlled by the Trustee or Xafinity. Once the guarantee period has expired, there is no statutory mechanism to extend it.

• Given that: (i) HDC was aware of the three month deadline when the September CETV was issued; (ii) all of the statutory information had been supplied at the start of the guarantee period; and (iii) all supplementary questions raised by HDC had been answered more than three weeks prior to the expiration of the September

2 CAS-30511-T8M5 CETV, it did not feel there was a valid reason for the Trustee or company to make good any difference between the September CETV and the January CETV.

• It felt that HDC had three months in which to consider all the relevant statutory information, which it considered was adequate time to advise Mr R and receive his instruction to accept the September CETV, had he been minded to do so.

• CETV values were subject to financial factors which changed on a monthly basis. The purpose of those factors was to place a fair financial value on Mr R’s benefits available from the Scheme, at a particular time. Those factors changed over time and as such the resulting CETV values differed.

• It appreciated that the January CETV was lower than the value of the September CETV. However, the value of the Scheme benefit which it reflected was correct on both occasions.

• Mr R did not have to accept the January CETV. He was able to request further quotations if he wished. Those quotations may have had higher or lower values at later dates, but they would have always reflected an “appropriate and fair” value of his benefits payable from the Scheme at the time.

• The Scheme’s standard practice is to allow members one free CETV quotation per year. Any more than this and a charge is applicable.

• However, it had agreed with Xafinity not to impose a charge if Mr R wished to request a number of CETV quotations over the next 12 months, to assist him in his transfer considerations.

3 CAS-30511-T8M5

4 CAS-30511-T8M5

• The September CETV was issued in line with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations).

• The Regulations state that if a request for a statutory CETV is made, a CETV must be issued within three months of the request. In Mr R’s case this requirement was met.

• It did not believe the request for additional information should have prevented the IFA from informing Mr R of the expiration of the September CETV.

• In his letter of 3 September 2019, Mr R asserted that he was not informed about the timescales for completing the transfer out of the Scheme. However, Xafinity’s letter dated 19 September 2016, that was sent to the IFA, confirmed that an application to transfer must be received before the end of the guarantee period in order to secure the transfer value.

• Mr R should take up the issue of not being informed about the deadline with the IFA directly.

• The Regulations confirm that once an application to transfer has been received within the guarantee period, a further three months can be granted in order to complete the transfer.

• These were statutory timescales. As “a self-certified ‘pension transfer specialist’” HDC would have been aware of the timescales set out in the Regulations.

• After reviewing Mr R’s case, the Trustee agreed that it was correct not to extend the guarantee period of the September CETV.

Mr R’s position

5 CAS-30511-T8M5

6 CAS-30511-T8M5

7 CAS-30511-T8M5 “Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be the last piece of information we will require from the scheme, once it has been reviewed, we will be able to advise further.”

8 CAS-30511-T8M5

Summary of HDC’s comments in relation to the Report

Adjudicator’s Opinion

9 CAS-30511-T8M5

10 CAS-30511-T8M5

Mr R did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion. In response he provided further comments from himself and his IFA. These are summarised below.

Summary of Mr R’s comments concerning his financial loss

11 CAS-30511-T8M5 Summary of Mr R’s comments in relation to the delay

Summary of his comments concerning HDC’s involvement

12 CAS-30511-T8M5

Mr R’s comments on the September CETV

13 CAS-30511-T8M5

14 CAS-30511-T8M5

As neither Mr R nor the Trustee accepted the Adjudicator’s Opinion, the complaint was passed to me to consider. I have noted the additional points made by the parties and I do not agree that an award should be made in respect of maladministration.

Ombudsman’s decision

15 CAS-30511-T8M5

1https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/48/pdfs/ukpga_19930048_310320_en.pdf

2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1847/made

16 CAS-30511-T8M5

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 23 May 2022

17 CAS-30511-T8M5 Appendix Adjudicator’s Timeline

21 September 2016 IFA received September CETV from Xafinity.

26 September 2016 (3 working days later) HDC requested additional information from Xafinity.

10 October 2016 (10 working days later) Xafinity sent requested information to the HDC.

20 October 2016 (8 working days later) HDC requested final information from Xafinity.

4 November 2016 (11 working days later) Xafinity provided the requested information to HDC.

22 November 2016 (12 working days later) HDC completed final review of Mr R’s case.

2 December 2016 (8 working days after HDC sent the Report to Mr R. final review of Mr R’s case)

12 December 2016 (6 working days later) Guarantee period for the September CETV expired.

Actual Timeline

21 September 2016 IFA received September CETV from Xafinity.

26 September 2016 (3 working days later) HDC requested additional information from Xafinity.

25 October 2016 (21 working days later) Xafinity provided requested information to HDC.

4 November 2016 (8 working days later) HDC requested additional information from Xafinity.

21 November 2016 (11 working days later) Xafinity provided the response to HDC.

7 December 2016 (12 working days later) HDC completed final review of Mr R’s case.

18 CAS-30511-T8M5 12 December 2016 (3 working days later) Guaranteed period for the September CETV expired.

19 December 2016 (8 working days after HDC sent Mr R the Report. final review of Mr R’s case)

19