Reassure Pension Group Stakeholder Pension Plan · CAS-90949-P2D1

CAS-90949-P2D1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme ReAssure Pension (Group Stakeholder Pension Plan) (the Plan)

Respondent ReAssure (ReAssure)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mr S has complained that ReAssure delayed the transfer of two personal pension policies to his Novia UK SIPP (Novia SIPP). He said:-

• He telephoned ReAssure many times to explain that the urgency of his transfers was because from 1 January 2022 he would become a Spanish tax resident.

• He had not yet taken any money from his Novia SIPP, but he now had an inherent tax liability because he lived in Spain. He wanted ReAssure to cover his future tax liability.

Background information, including submissions from the parties Mr S held two policies in the Plan, ER/1, and ER/2.

On 30 June 2021, ReAssure sent a transfer statement to Mr S for ER/1 and ER/2.

On 13 August 2021, ReAssure telephoned Mr S’ adviser, Fusion Accountancy, as it needed to establish the firm’s accountancy qualifications before accepting any Letter of Authority (LOA).

On 19 August 2021, Fusion Accountancy telephoned ReAssure who confirmed Mr S’ ER/1 transfer value was £320,923.56. ReAssure said it would send Fusion Accountancy policy details and a transfer statement.

On 25 August 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to ask it for a transfer statement. On the same day, he telephoned ReAssure again to ask it for details about a retirement

1 CAS-90949-P2D1 annuity. ReAssure told Mr S that he could administer an annuity as normal if he set one up before he moved abroad.

On 2 September 2021, ReAssure asked its fund manager for unit values for ER/1 and ER/2.

On 1 October 2021, Fusion Accountancy telephoned ReAssure to request further information.

On 15 October 2021, ReAssure sent a transfer statement, dated 22 September 2021, for policy ER/1 and transfer forms to Fusion Accountancy. It showed a transfer value of £318,534.55.

On 12 November 2021, Novia telephoned ReAssure regarding Mr S’ transfers. On the same day, Novia confirmed that Mr S’ transfers were overseas transfers.

On 15 November 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to ask if it could email him the International Self Invested Personal Pension form (the SIPP Form) as he lived in Spain. He wanted ReAssure to complete his transfers as soon as possible to avoid him becoming liable for a large Spanish tax charge.

On 18 November 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to ask it to send him the SIPP Form as quickly as possible. Mr S reiterated should ReAssure fail to complete his transfers before he became a Spanish tax resident on 1 January 2022, he would incur a large Spanish tax liability if he withdrew a cash lump sum. On the same day, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to question whether he needed to complete the SIPP Form as his transfer was not an international transfer. ReAssure told Mr S that it required the SIPP Form as he lived abroad. Mr S telephoned ReAssure a third time that day to query why ReAssure was sending the SIPP Form when the receiving scheme was in the UK. ReAssure confirmed that it needed the SIPP Form as Mr S was living abroad.

On 19 November 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to chase the SIPP Form as he had not received it.

On 22 November 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure as he had still not received the SIPP Form and ReAssure had not telephoned him back as it had said it would. ReAssure told him it was still checking his transfer documentation. On the same day, Mr S telephoned ReAssure again as it had still not telephoned him.

On 23 November 2021, ReAssure telephoned Mr S to inform him that due to a technical issue, it was not able to email the SIPP Form that day.

On 24 November 2021, ReAssure emailed the SIPP Form to Mr S and telephoned him. Mr S told ReAssure that he thought he had already sent a completed SIPP Form to it.

On 25 November 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to ask for details of its service level agreements (SLA) on transfers. ReAssure told him it was four weeks to

2 CAS-90949-P2D1 complete a transfer. It also said the lump sum payable on 30 June 2021 was £90,563.17, which was 29.05% of the total ER/1 Plan value of £311,747.29.

On 26 November 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to obtain the email address to send the SIPP Form to. ReAssure provided this information and it said he should make it clear in the subject line that the SIPP Form was for the Escalation Team. On the same day, ReAssure received Mr S’ completed SIPP Form.

On 30 November and 7 December 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to chase the completion of the transfers. ReAssure said they would be urgently allocated so the transfers could be progressed.

On 14 December 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure for an update on his transfers. It advised Mr S that that they were “in progress”. On the same day, ReAssure responded to Mr S’ concerns about his transfers. ReAssure said:-

• It had reviewed its records, and it had provided a service to Mr S which had fallen short of the high standards it tried to provide to customers and a delay had occurred.

• It was sorry it had let Mr S down, but it had experienced extremely high customer demand which had sometimes led to unfortunate delays.

• It said Mr S’ transfers would complete soon.

• It would look to see if Mr S had suffered a financial loss, and it would update him.

• It would send Mr S an award of £200 and it would give feedback to its team managers to try to avoid similar delays occurring for other customers in the future.

On 16 December 2021, Mr S telephoned ReAssure who advised him that a manager would telephone him that day. Later that day, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to complain that he had not spoken to a manager.

On 21 December 2021, a ReAssure manager left Mr S a message telling him that his ER/1 transfer payment had been authorised before 11.00 am that day, so it would be with Novia by close of business.

On 31 January 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to complain about the way it had processed his transfers. He complained it had not telephoned him back when it said it would and the delays he had suffered would cause him a financial loss of £25,000.

On 17 February 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure to complain that he thought it was unacceptable for ReAssure to have eight weeks to respond to his complaint. Mr S said he had put his pension planning “on hold” until he knew whether ReAssure would compensate him.

On 28 February 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure about his complaint. He said he thought that three months to transfer his ReAssure pensions was too long. In

3 CAS-90949-P2D1 response, ReAssure promised Mr S that it would telephone him about his complaint within three days.

On 4 March 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure as it had not telephoned him back. ReAssure said a member of its complaints team would call him back as soon as possible. On the same day, ReAssure tried to telephone Mr R. Mr R called back and explained his complaint was about a Spanish tax liability and he would send proof of this liability.

On 14 March 2022, Mr S spoke to ReAssure to explain again that his complaint was about his Spanish tax liability. He also said he would re-send proof of his liability.

On 26 March 2022, ReAssure contacted Novia, the receiving scheme.

On 29 March 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure because it had not telephoned him back.

On 6 April 2022, Novia emailed ReAssure to inform it that Mr S’ transfer money remained uninvested in its cash account.

On 12, 25 and 28 April 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure who told him it was completing a loss assessment.

Throughout May 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure about his complaint.

On 9 June 2022, Mr S spoke to ReAssure who said it would telephone him back in three to five days.

On 10 and 14 June 2022, a ReAssure analyst telephoned Mr S to discuss his complaint.

On 16 June 2022, Mr S emailed ReAssure his financial adviser’s comments. This confirmed:-

• Novia received the transfer value for ER/1 on 22 December 2021 and it confirmed receipt the following day.

• Novia received the transfer value for ER/2 on 20 January 2022.

• ReAssure said several times that it would transfer the funds but when chased it said it had not yet made the transfers, or that Mr S needed to supply another document.

On 26 and 29 June and 5 July 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure who told him the person assigned to work on his case was on sickness absence. It promised him a telephone call back within three days. Mr S emailed ReAssure the same day.

On 5 July 2022, Mr S brought his complaint to The Pension Ombudsman (TPO).

On 7 and 14 July 2022, Mr S telephoned ReAssure about his complaint.

4 CAS-90949-P2D1 On 25 July 2022, ReAssure provided its response to Mr R’s complaint. It said:-

• ER/1: its delays meant it transferred £326,518.20 to Novia on 22 December 2021, rather than £317,666.20 on 29 September 2021.

• ER/2: its delays caused it to transfer £30,605.38 to Novia on 20 January 2022, rather than £31,240.16 on 29 September 2021.

• It would have been possible for Novia to pay Mr S 25% of the ER/1 cash transfer on, or before, 31 December 2021. However, it remitted the second amount for ER/2 after his deadline for tax residency purposes.

• ReAssure apologised for it making the second transfer after Mr S’ deadline for Spanish tax residency.

• To consider Mr S’ claim that when he withdrew an amount up to £7,810.04 from his Novia SIPP he had incurred an additional loss due to Spanish taxes, it required him to provide substantiated evidence of the tax charge incurred.

On 26 July 2022, ReAssure wrote to Mr S regarding the financial loss for ER/1. It referred to its 14 December 2021 complaint response letter and said that there had been no financial loss, as on 21 December 2021 it had transferred £326,518.20, instead of £317,666.20 if it had made the transfer on 26 September 2021.

On 8 August 2022, ReAssure sent Mr S a letter setting out its loss assessment on ER/1 and ER/2 again. It said it needed Mr S to provide evidence to substantiate any Spanish tax charges.

On the same day, Mr S telephoned ReAssure about his complaint.

On 26 July 2023, TPO asked ReAssure for its formal response on Mr S’ complaint.

On 27 July 2023, ReAssure sent TPO its formal response to Mr S’ complaint along with copies of its complaint file. The response confirmed:-

• It had conducted a loss assessment in July 2022 and sent Mr S a loss assessment letter to confirm its findings. ReAssure attached a copy of the loss assessment.

• On 8 August 2022, it had asked Mr S to send it substantiated evidence of his additional loss caused by him incurring a Spanish tax charge when he had withdrawn up to £7,810.04 from his Novia SIPP.

• Mr S had not sent ReAssure any new information after his 18 August 2022 email that said that Novia had disagreed that it could have processed his ER/1 pension payment by the end of 2021.

On 22 September 2023, Mr S commented on ReAssure’s formal response. He said:-

• It was an unsatisfactory response and only referred to ER/2.

5 CAS-90949-P2D1 • His complaint was also about ER/1 which ReAssure had valued at £326,518.00. ReAssure transferred it too late in 2021 for his new provider, Novia, to process the tax-free element of £81,629.00 before his Spanish tax residency began. As a result, if he withdrew that money now, he would have to pay the top Spanish tax bracket of 45% that would cause him a financial loss of £36,733.05.

• He had not yet drawn down any of his pension pots, so he had not included this in his Spanish tax return. But, if he drew down from ER/2 now, his tax liability would be £3,443.10.

• His tax loss is persistent insomuch that when he drew down money in the future, he would have to pay Spanish tax on the withdrawal. Whereas, if he had held the money in his bank account before he became a Spanish tax resident, he would not have paid tax in the UK, or Spain, and he could have reinvested it.

• He has provided a compensation tax table showing the 45% Spanish tax he would pay on any compensation on ER/1. This totalled £66,674.97 in tax.

Mr S submits:-

6 CAS-90949-P2D1

ReAssure submits:-

Adjudicator’s Opinion

• Mr S’ claim for his Spanish tax liability was speculative and the potential amount was yet unknown. Mr S had been unable to provide evidence to support this part of his complaint. So, the Pensions Ombudsman (the PO) could not direct ReAssure to make good an unknown future tax liability. The PO would only look to remedy any justifiable loss that an applicant had already suffered.

7 CAS-90949-P2D1

Mr S did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr S provided his further comments which include:-

• ReAssure has not recognised the tax loss on ER/1.

• The Adjudicator’s Opinion does not comment on whether it is reasonable to accept ReAssure’s view that it transferred ER/1 in good time for Novia to pay out a tax-free cash lump sum. This was relevant especially in light of Novia providing an opinion that ReAssure transferred ER/1 too late for him to complete a drawdown before he became a Spanish tax resident.

• ReAssure has not provided a clear instruction on the evidence it required from him to claim the compensation on ER/2, nor an assurance that it was committed to providing compensation to him when he did submit that evidence.

I note the additional points raised by Mr S but they do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

8 CAS-90949-P2D1

Therefore, I partly uphold Mr S’ complaint.

Directions

Camilla Barry

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 16 June 2025

9