Origen Financial Services Limited · DRN-6260640

The complaint Mr S complains that Origen Financial Services Limited (‘Origen’) didn’t give him suitable advice or follow a proper insistent client process in relation to the transfer of his two occupational defined benefit (‘DB’) pensions, and that this has caused him a financial loss. Mr S has a professional representative, but for simplicity I’ll refer to all actions and comments as being those of Mr S. What happened Mr S had two DB pensions from two periods of service with the same employer. The DB scheme was underfunded and in late 2016 the employer contacted members, including Mr S, with enhanced transfer values for their DB pensions benefits and to say it would pay for them to receive advice from Origen. Mr S’s transfer values were given as £165,390 and £375,067, with an explanation that this included a 5% enhancement and that he’d only receive this transfer offer if he returned the paperwork to Origen by 16 March 2017 - but that he didn’t have to transfer and the scheme reserved the right to revise or withdraw this offer at any point. Mr S approached Origen for advice. It gathered information about his circumstances and objectives, and its suitability report of 2 March 2017 recommended he did not transfer his DB pensions. But Mr S still wanted to transfer because he wanted to access tax free cash (‘TFC’) in order to clear his mortgage and credit card debt. So Origen treated him as an insistent client, and its new suitability reports of 14 and 15 March 2017 recommended he put the transferred monies into flexi access drawdown and a joint life level annuity. The transfers went ahead in line with this, with Mr S taking TFC. In April 2025, Mr S complained to Origen about the suitability of its advice and its insistent client process, saying it hadn’t explored alternative ways of meeting his objective of clearing his mortgage and other debt, or explained that he could access his DB scheme benefits early. Had it done so, he’d have considered these and not transferred his DB pensions. That the DB scheme used the enhanced transfer values as encouragement to transfer. That Origen hadn’t followed a proper insistent client process, so he’d not been able to make an informed decision – in particular, its calls with him were rushed and lacked detail, it had failed to ensure he understood its advice and the implications of being an insistent client, and it told him what to include in his ‘insistent client’ email. And that Origen shouldn’t have facilitated the transfer for him simply so he could access TFC he didn’t need, as this hadn’t been in his best interests. Mr S therefore thought Origen had caused him a financial loss. Origen said its recommendation not to transfer had been suitable, but Mr S had wanted to transfer anyway. That it had followed an appropriate insistent client process and made clear the risks and consequences of transferring. But Mr S had complained too late in any case, as it was more than six years since the events complained of and more than three years since he ought to have been aware of his cause for complaint.

-- 1 of 8 --

Still unhappy, Mr S brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service in July 2025. One of our Investigators thought he’d complained too late under the relevant time limits. But Mr S disagreed and explained why he still thought he’d complained in time. As agreement couldn’t be reached, this complaint was passed to me. Ultimately, I issued a jurisdiction decision in which I said this complaint had been brought within the relevant time limit rules and so was one our Service could consider the merits of. And having been provided by Origen with further documentary evidence from the time of the events in question, I issued a provisional decision on the merits of Mr S’s complaint. In this, I explained why I thought Origen hadn’t given Mr S unsuitable advice or acted unfairly or unreasonably in treating him as an insistent client. And I explained why I thought that, even if there had been flaws in Origen’s advice and insistent client process (which there weren’t), Mr S would more likely than not have still proceeded with the transfers regardless. Despite being provided with the opportunity, Origen didn’t provide any further comments or evidence for consideration. But Mr S disagreed with the provisional decision and provided further comments. In summary, he said: • The Regulator said DB transfers were generally unsuitable, and Origen’s March 2017 suitability report concluded that transferring wasn’t in Mr S’s best interest. Yet Origen still facilitated Mr S’s transfers under the ‘guise’ of an insistent client process. • The Regulator makes clear that the insistent client process doesn’t absolve firms of acting in the client’s best interest or where the transaction is unsuitable. The firm was still responsible if it failed to adequately challenge the course of action or ensure the client fully understood the long-term implications. • Here, Mr S’s objective was to repay mortgage and credit card debt Origen was obliged to properly assess Mr S’s objectives rather than simply implement his preferred course of action. And his debts were being serviced, so their repayment wasn’t a financial necessity that justified the loss of his DB benefits. • Origen failed to explore alternatives, such as restructuring Mr S’s debts, re- mortgaging or switching to interest-only arrangements, or accessing his DB benefits early. And it failed to give him any meaningful comparison between the cost and consequences of transferring versus remaining in the DB scheme. • The vulnerability factors had been understated. Mr S had expressed desperation, was influenced by a time-limited enhanced transfer values, and had concerns about his health and life expectancy. So Origen had an increased duty to ensure he fully understood the consequences of his decisions and guard against the risk of poor- decision making. Instead, it rushed its discussions with him, limited its exploration of his alternatives and directed him on what to include in his insistent client letter. • The risk warnings Origen gave him were generic without the necessary depth, and it hadn’t quantified the long-term financial impact of losing his DB scheme benefits or the effect of charges and investment and inflation risks. • He was assessed as having a ‘moderately cautious’ attitude to risk (‘ATR’) but was placed into a higher-risk arrangement. • There was no evidence that he’d have proceeded with the transfers regardless. He’d sought professional advice precisely because he required guidance on whether transferring was appropriate. Had Origen properly challenged him or declined to process the transfers it had considered unsuitable, he likely wouldn’t have transferred. Assuming he would didn’t recognise the significance of Origen’s role.

-- 2 of 8 --

As both parties have had the opportunity to respond to the provisional decision, I’m now in a position to issue a final decision. 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. For clarity, this includes all the comments provided in response to the provisional decision. Also, I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice, and what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. This includes the Principles for Businesses (PRIN) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’). And where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory, I reach my conclusions on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I think is more likely than not to have happened based on the available evidence and the wider surrounding circumstances. The applicable rules, regulations and requirements The below is not a comprehensive list of the rules and regulations which applied at the time of the advice, but provides useful context for my assessment of Origen’s actions here. PRIN 6: A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. PRIN 7: A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading. COBS 2.1.1R: A firm must act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its client (the client's best interests rule). The provisions in COBS 9 which deal with the obligations when giving a personal recommendation and assessing suitability. And the provisions in COBS 19 which specifically relate to a DB pension transfer. As Mr S points out, the Regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority, ‘FCA’), states in COBS 19.1.6G that the starting assumption for a transfer from a DB scheme is that it is unsuitable. And the FCA’s 2016 guidance explained what it expected firms to do when advising an insistent client. It said: “Steps to take when advising an insistent client There are 3 key steps: 1. You must provide advice that is suitable for the individual client, and this advice must be clear to the client. This is the normal advice process. 2. You should be clear with the client about the risks of their chosen course of action. If the advice includes a pension transfer, conversion or opt-out, there may be additional requirements. These may include ensuring the advice is provided by or checked by a pension transfer specialist, comparing the defined benefit (DB) scheme with the defined contribution (DC) scheme and starting by assuming the transfer is not suitable (see COBS 19.1).

-- 3 of 8 --

3. It should be clear to the client that their actions are against your advice. Advice rules Although there are no rules specifically about insistent clients, you must follow the normal advice rules first. So you must obtain the necessary information about the client and their investment objectives, financial situation, and knowledge and experience so as to enable you to make a suitable personal recommendation (see COBS 9.2). You must also act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of the client (see COBS 2.1.1). You must ascertain the client’s investment objectives before making a recommendation. A request or preference by the client for a particular solution – for example accessing cash from a pension – is not an objective. You must ascertain the client’s actual investment objectives so that you can advise on a suitable course of action to meet them. You must also communicate with the client (for example in the suitability report) in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading (see Principle 7 and COBS 4.2.1). There is no rule to prevent advisers transacting business against their advice if the client insists” I’ve carefully considered all of Mr S’s submissions in this complaint and it is clear that in his view, transferring his two DB pensions was not suitable for him. And Origen recommended to Mr S that he should not transfer out of the DB schemes because it thought transferring was not in his best interests. So both parties broadly agree on this point. However, it appears that Mr S still wanted to proceed anyway. And Origen allowed him the opportunity to disregard its advice and transfer as an insistent client. So, I’ve considered the process Origen followed and whether it was fair for it to treat Mr S as an insistent client. Mr S says the enhanced transfer values were used as encouragement to transfer, and I’m mindful that there was a deadline to transfer by. But the enhanced transfer values and the deadline did not come from Origen, so those aren’t things I can fairly hold it responsible for. And in any event, I still haven’t seen evidence to persuade me that Origen encouraged Mr S to transfer because of the enhanced transfer values or the deadline. As set out above, the FCA’s guidance on insistent clients says that advisers must follow the normal advice rules first. And I think Origen did so here. I say that because it carried out fact finding with Mr S, which included a phone call on 2 February 2017 that lasted about one hour and sixteen minutes. Having listened to this call, I’ve heard that Origen discussed with Mr S in detail his circumstances, objectives, investment experience, ATR and capacity for loss, and answered all questions he had. So I’m satisfied Origen gathered the necessary information about Mr S and his circumstances and objectives. And I still don’t think this call was rushed or lacked detail, as Mr S has reiterated. During this call, Origen also explained the various possible options for Mr S, including staying in the DB scheme or transferring out and using the monies to provide retirement income in different ways, such as an annuity. Mr S asked if he could explain to Origen what he had in mind - that he intended to work for as long as possible but wanted a lump sum from his pension now so he could clear his mortgage and his credit card debt - Mr S said it was “a must” for him to do this by April otherwise life would continue to be very hard and he didn’t think he’d have a long life given his health and family history. Origen explained that his DB pensions provided valuable guarantees so there would need to be compelling reasons to transfer, and it would recommend what it thought best for Mr S which might be something different to what Mr S wanted to do, but they’d see what the recommendation was first and

-- 4 of 8 --

then discuss the reasons for that recommendation. Mr S asked whether it would ultimately be his choice; Origen said yes, but it must recommend what was suitable for him in his particular circumstances, and if he wanted to do something different they could talk about that later. Mr S asked if Origen would work with him to go ahead anyway; Origen said it might or might not. In light of this call, I’m satisfied that Origen started from the ‘presumption of unsuitability’. And I’m also satisfied that Origen didn’t inappropriately introduce the idea of being an insistent client to Mr S; rather it was Mr S that first raised the prospect of going ahead anyway, even when he didn’t yet know what Origen’s advice would be. And I don’t think Origen encouraged him in this but simply answered his queries about it. Origen then provided Mr S with its suitability report of 2 March 2017. I’m satisfied Origen did enough to challenge Mr S’s objective and his thinking, and that its report made its recommendation clear to Mr S. Because the report prominently said its recommendation was that he “take no action at this time, remain a member of the [DB scheme] and consider drawing benefits at a future point.” And the reasons the report gave for this recommendation were: • If Mr S drew benefits now he’d face an early retirement ‘penalty’ and would pay income tax on them given his other sources of income. • He would lose valuable guaranteed benefits if he transferred. • He intended to work until age 65 and currently had enough income to cover his expenditure, including his mortgage and credit card repayments which would be cleared by age 65. And the guaranteed income from his DB pensions exceeded his expected expenditure at that age, then his state pension on top meant he’d have enough guaranteed income to meet his ideal annual retirement income. Whereas, transferring meant his guaranteed retirement income at age 65 would be less than his expected expenditure at that age. • He was servicing his debts. By deferring taking his DB pension benefits until age 65, he’d clear his debts by then and would receive a guaranteed and increasing income plus TFC lump sums. • By remaining in his DB scheme, he could still consider transferring in future without giving up his current scheme benefits. Mr S has reiterated that Origen didn’t explore alternative ways of meeting his objective of clearing his mortgage and credit card debt, or explain that he could access his DB scheme benefits early. And that if it had done so, he’d have considered these and not transferred his DB pensions. But I remain satisfied that Origen did explore and explain these things. As its 2 March 2017 suitability report recorded that if he drew benefits early he’d face an early retirement ‘penalty’ and what he drew would be taxable. And that, while he didn’t have any assets from which he could easily access a lump sum to clear his debts (totalling £143,600), he was servicing these debts so if he carried on as he was, then they’d be paid off by age 65. And I don’t agree that Mr S would’ve been willing to consider the option of debt management, consolidation, restructuring, re-mortgaging or switching to interest-only arrangements, given the urgency he clearly felt at the time of the advice to have these debts cleared by April. Mr S also now says that Origen failed to ensure he understood its advice. But I think Origen took reasonable steps to ensure he’d understood its advice. As I say, it clearly set out its recommendation and the reasons for this. And it had a call with Mr S on 2 March 2017 about the advice. In this, Mr S said (amongst other things) that he understood the recommendation to leave his DB pensions where they were but that he was thinking about withdrawing one of the DB pensions in its entirety as he “desperately” needed the lump sum now to repay debt

-- 5 of 8 --

and asked if Origen could help him with that. Origen explained the tax implications of Mr S’s suggestions for how he could withdraw any transferred monies, but I’m satisfied it made clear that its view was that Mr S was already servicing his debts and it had recommended he not transfer. And again, I don’t think this call was rushed or lacked detail. In addition, Mr S says Origen failed to give him any meaningful comparison between the cost and consequences of transferring versus remaining in the DB scheme, and that it didn’t quantify the long-term financial impact of losing his DB scheme benefits or the effect of charges and investment and inflation risks. But I’ve seen that Origen’s 2 March 2017 refers Mr S to the attached transfer value analysis (‘TVAS’) report it had prepared for him in line with the Regulator’s requirements. Mr S says Origen didn’t ensure he understood the implications of being an insistent client and that it only gave him generic risk warnings. He’s not specified what implications he’s referring to. But I’m satisfied Origen didn’t underplay the loss of guarantees or the risks involved in transferring. Because its 2 March 2017 suitability report made clear the risks in detail, including that transferring would mean he’d lose valuable guaranteed benefits and may mean he’d be worse off in retirement, that he would bear the investment, inflation and volatility risk, and that if he didn’t transfer them then his DB schemes together with his state pension would broadly meet his retirement income needs. Further, in the call on 2 March 2017, after Mr S had again raised the prospect of proceeding against Origen’s recommendation not to transfer, Origen explained to him that if he wanted to do something different to its recommendation, then that was his choice. And to see if it could help him, he’d need to put in writing that he understood what the recommendation was, that he was giving up guaranteed benefits, what he was looking to do with his pension and what he understood the implications to be and his reasons for looking to do this. Origen explained this was its insistent client process. Mr S asked if Origen could say no, if Origen could stop him from doing what he wanted, and if necessary how he could take this business elsewhere to proceed. Origen explained that it could refuse to treat him as an insistent client and Mr S would then need to ask providers or other advisers if they would transact the transfers. So I think Origen explained to Mr S what an insistent client was. In his submissions, Mr S has argued that Origen should have declined to process the transfers its advice had said was unsuitable for him as they weren’t in his best interest. However, as the FCA’s guidance noted, there was no rule to prevent advisers transacting business against their advice if the client insists. And I’m satisfied Mr S did insist, because he emailed Origen on 6 March 2017 to say, “thank you for the reports and we have noted your recommendations. But after considering what we want future wise I feel that pension 1) id [ending7] I would like this to be now moved into a drawdown scheme and the 25% lump sum to be taken as of April the 1st 2017 I realise using the drawdown will be subject to TAX. 2) id [ending4] I would like this to be now taken as an annuity with spouse of 50% and the lump sum of 25% to be taken as of April 1st 2017 I feel this is our best option to enjoying my retirement, I also intend to clear mortgage and card debit freeing house hold income to do other things. I also see potential saving in interest payment both on mortgage and card which I will not have to pay out, loosely working it out with annuity and state pension plus draw down plus standard life pension.

-- 6 of 8 --

should be around £30,000 at 66 reducing when the draw down fund is exhausted. At the same time we will have a savings nest egg. should things not work so well I still have the asset of my property worth 300,000 and could downsize and use that income as well Thank you for you [sic] help on this matter please can you now advise what the next step is making this happen. I realise we have tight time scales”. Mr S says Origen told him what to include in his insistent client email. But having listened to all calls between Mr S and Origen, I’m satisfied that Origen only explained to Mr S in general terms what points it would need him to address in an insistent client letter and did not dictate what he should say. I’m also satisfied that given the detail in Mr S’s insistent client email, that those were his own words which represented his own thoughts. Origen treated Mr S as an insistent client and issued new suitability reports of 14 and 15 March 2016 which respectively recommended that he put the smaller DB pension monies in a flexible access personal pension and use the larger DB pension monies to buy an annuity. Mr S says he was assessed as having a ‘moderately cautious’ ATR but was placed into a higher-risk arrangement. But I’m satisfied that the annuity and the funds Origen recommended he invest his transferred monies into, as set out in these reports, were overall in line with that ATR. And I’m satisfied that both of these reports made clear that Mr S was being treated as an insistent client because he wished to proceed against its original recommendation to remain in the DB scheme. As they said, • “You have stated that you wish to proceed on an insistent basis. … • My previous recommendation was that you defer these benefits until your retirement. However, you have decided to go against my advice and take the tax free cash benefits to clear your mortgage and credit card….” Further, I’m satisfied these two suitability reports set out the risks of transferring to Mr S, including that he would likely be worse off in retirement and may have insufficient income to live on in retirement, that he and his estate would likely pay more tax, that he’d lose guaranteed and increasing income for life, and would also lose a spouse’s/dependant’s pension. Taking everything into account, I’m satisfied Origen didn’t give Mr S unsuitable advice or act unfairly or unreasonably in treating him as an insistent client. But even if I thought there were flaws in Origen’s advice and insistent client process (which I don’t), I remain satisfied Mr S would’ve more likely than not proceeded with the transfers regardless. I know Mr S disagrees, but based on the contemporaneous evidence, including what Mr S told Origen in the fact finding call of 2 February 2017 and the advice call of 2 March 2017, I think Mr S approached Origen and the advice process with a clear goal in mind – to transfer his DB pensions in order to access a lump sum now with which to clear his debts. It seems this was a considerable and pressing motivating factor for him, and from early on he appeared resistant to any other ideas and wanted to know how he could proceed regardless of what Origen’s advice would be. In his submissions, Mr S has said that there’s no evidence he’d have proceeded with the transfers in any event, that he’d sought professional advice precisely because he required guidance on whether transferring was appropriate, and assuming he’d have transferred regardless didn’t recognise the significance of Origen’s role. But as I say, the advice that

-- 7 of 8 --

Origen gave Mr S was to not transfer. And it explained the reasons for this advice and made it sufficiently clear to Mr S what he would lose and risk by transferring Despite this, Mr S remained consistent in his communications with Origen that he wanted to transfer his DB pensions in order to access a lump sum to clear his debts. And he repeated this when he wrote in his own words why he wanted to transfer against Origen’s advice; he wanted to clear debt and enjoy things while he was able to, and he thought his circumstances were such that he would in any case be comfortable in retirement even if transferring left him worse off. So I think Mr S felt at that time that it was more important to have the peace of mind from having his debts cleared sooner rather than later. Mr S has suggested he was vulnerable at this time, because he’d expressed desperation to Origen, was influenced by a time-limited enhanced transfer values, and had concerns about his health and life expectancy. While I can understand his life expectancy may have been something Mr S was concerned about, I’ve not seen anything to make me think it would in fact be shorter for Mr S than otherwise expected. And I don’t think that Mr S “desperately” wanting the enhanced TFC on offer so that he could make his life easier in the short term by clearing his debts early meant Origen shouldn’t have provided him with advice or treated him as an insistent client. Origen’s recommendation was that Mr S should not transfer. And as I’ve explained, I’m satisfied Origen didn’t give Mr S unsuitable advice or act unfairly or unreasonably in treating him as an insistent client. And while there was a deadline that Mr S was mindful of, the whole advice and insistent client process nonetheless took place over several weeks, so I think Origen gave Mr S a reasonable period in which to think about things. So while I realise this still isn’t the answer Mr S wants, I’m not upholding his complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out, my decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Ailsa Wiltshire Ombudsman

-- 8 of 8 --