Hargreaves Lansdown Self Invested Personal Pension · CAS-71665-Q5N4

CAS-71665-Q5N4

Ombudsman’s Determination

Applicant Mr I

Scheme Hargreaves Lansdown Self-Invested Personal Pension (the HL SIPP)

Respondent Hargreaves Lansdown (HL)

Outcome

Complaint Summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-71665-Q5N4

Principle 2: Trustees, providers and administrators should have robust, but proportionate, processes for assessing whether a receiving scheme may be operating as part of a pension scam, and for responding to that risk.

• In dealing with a transfer request, trustees, providers and administrators should conduct due diligence on the receiving scheme. Where they suspect that the receiving scheme may be involved in a scam, trustees, providers

2 CAS-71665-Q5N4 and administrators should carefully consider whether the transfer should proceed.

• Appropriate due diligence will vary for different types of pension schemes. In carrying out due diligence, trustees, providers and administrators should aim to collect information over the following areas where applicable:

o Receiving scheme type.

o Date of establishment.

o Legal status of the receiving scheme and any administrators or operators.

o Location of the receiving scheme and any administrators or operators in relation to the scheme member.

o Any employment link between the receiving scheme and the scheme member.

o Marketing methods; for example, ask scheme members to confirm how they became aware of the scheme to which they intend to transfer and establish if they have been contacted by an introducer or company through cold calling, unsolicited text messages or emails, or by being approached directly outside of their place of work, a common method known as ‘factory-gating’.

o Investment choice; for example, ask scheme members to confirm where the money is to be invested and the investment vehicle being used.”

3 CAS-71665-Q5N4

4 CAS-71665-Q5N4

5 CAS-71665-Q5N4

6 CAS-71665-Q5N4

7 CAS-71665-Q5N4

8 CAS-71665-Q5N4

9 CAS-71665-Q5N4

10 CAS-71665-Q5N4

Adjudicator’s Opinion

11 CAS-71665-Q5N4

12 CAS-71665-Q5N4

Mr I did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and, in response, he provided further comments. In summary, he says:-

• In his view, reviews should include a degree of commercial sense, rather than simply “ticking boxes”.

• He disagrees that HL should be able to, arbitrarily and for its own good, prevent him from doing what he chooses with his money.

• Much has been made of the fact that he found Empowered through a Facebook group. While this may be so, HL has tried to imply that this was mis-selling by pension scammers. The group in question comprises experienced property investors that he has known and studied with, or been taught by, many of whom he knew used SSAS arrangements. This is the reason why he asked the group for their views.

• He discovered HL through its “incessant spam mailings”. In his view, HL is more guilty of mis-selling and scamming than any Facebook group. He had followed HL’s investment advice and had lost £20,000 of his pension fund value.

• If my role is to protect investors from pension scammers, I should also be protecting them from businesses like HL.

• He has a master’s degree and qualifications in chartered accountancy and corporate finance. He has worked in financial markets for over two decades. He does not need HL to tell him where he should or should not invest.

Mr I’s complaint was passed to me to consider. I have noted Mr I’s further comments, but I find that they do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

1 See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/48/part/X/enacted

13 CAS-71665-Q5N4

2 Henderson v Stephenson Harwood [2005] Pens LR 209 (s12) 3 See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/48/section/146/enacted

14 CAS-71665-Q5N4 I do not uphold Mr I’s complaint.

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 13 February 2023

15