Ryland Group Pension Scheme · CAS-31053-J5J5

CAS-31053-J5J5

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme The Ryland Group Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent Prudential

Complaint Summary

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

• it provided Mr S with incorrect information; and

• this situation has caused Mr S distress and inconvenience.

1 CAS-31053-J5J5 Detailed Determination Material facts

“We have not been notified of any Earmarking Order, Pension Sharing Order or Bankruptcy Order associated with this scheme.”

In December 2014, Mr S requested his benefits from the Scheme be transferred to the SSAS. The amount transferred and paid into the SSAS on 30 December 2014 was £52,309.43. Prior to this transfer, Mr S transferred his benefits from three other pensions he had, and, in January 2015 he also transferred the funds he had in another pension scheme. The other transfers he completed were:-

• 10 December 2014 - £54,755.64 from Equitable Life.

• 10 December 2014 – £3,965.28 from Standard Life.

• 12 December 2014 - £1,534.51 from Equitable Life.

• 20 January 2015 - £13,808.14 from Friends Life.

In February 2015, Mr S transferred £50,000 from the SSAS to his solicitors and this amount was then loaned to his business (the Business) in March 2015. At the time the loan was made to the Business, the value of the SSAS was £121,938.51. The Business subsequently failed and the outstanding loan amount of £44,532.81 was written off by the SASS.

In 2018, Ms S contacted Mr S as she was concerned that she had lost her pension from Prudential. Subsequently, on 26 November 2018, the IFA contacted Prudential to query the value of Mr S’ benefits in the Scheme, as at 21 October 2011.

2 CAS-31053-J5J5 On 3 December 2018, Prudential replied to the IFA by letter and informed him that the value of Mr S’ benefits as at 21 October 2011 was £47,946.32. Prudential also said:

“The [PSO] was received and noted on our records on 3 November 2011.”

Following this, there were further exchanges between Mr S and Prudential, concerning the recovery of the incorrectly transferred funds to the SASS. On 12 March 2019, the IFA raised a complaint on Mr S’ behalf to Prudential. In summary he said:-

• Mr S’ retirement circumstances had potentially been significantly and detrimentally affected because of errors made by Prudential.

• Prudential had confirmed that the PSO had been fulfilled following a request for the funds to be transferred to Rowanmoor.

• Mr S understood and expected that Prudential had this matter in hand. Given the passage of time and errors made, Mr S felt it was appropriate for Prudential to compensate him for the situation in which he had now been placed through no fault of his own.

3 CAS-31053-J5J5

“ Mr [S] was aware of the [PSO] at the time of his divorce and presumed that the sharing order had been fulfilled in the absence of any correspondence or contact to the contrary from Prudential. As part of the subsequent transfer to Rowanmoor, clarification was sought and confirmation received that none existed. Mr [S] strongly refutes any inference that he requested the transfer of these funds in bad faith.

Mr [S] has again confirmed to me that he has not received any paperwork or contact from Prudential following his divorce. It remains his view that the outstanding [PSO] is a result of the inaction of Prudential and not a result of anything that he has failed to do…”

In February 2020, Prudential transferred £74,271.46 to Ms S. It wrote to Mr S on 3 March 2020, to inform him of this and said: “I can confirm the pension sharing order and transfer of 100% of your benefits to your ex-spouse has been completed.”

Summary of Mr S’ position

4 CAS-31053-J5J5

Summary of Prudential’s position

5 CAS-31053-J5J5

6 CAS-31053-J5J5

7 CAS-31053-J5J5

Conclusions

8 CAS-31053-J5J5

9 CAS-31053-J5J5

10 CAS-31053-J5J5

11 CAS-31053-J5J5

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 1 March 2022

12