Mr N v Boal & Co – Deputy Pensions Ombudsman - 31 October 2018

Summary of determination

Mr N made multiple complaints about:

alleged delays with processing a request to take a drawdown pension
the time taken to process a request to take responsibility for his pension investments from his independent financial adviser
the time taken to provide figures for an exit penalty
general delays and inadequacy in responding to subsequent complaints and requests for information for reasons for the delays which Mr N considered demonstrated systemic failures in the administrative systems of Boal & Co

Mr N also complained about the lack of an adequate apology, alleged untruthful statements and an alleged unjustified attempt to blame the Trustee for the delay when the delays were, in his view, all due to Boal & Co.

In the Determination the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman made the following observations about the duty of care owed by a manager/administrator:

A manager/administrator of a pension scheme such as the Scheme, adopting good administrative practice, should have service levels in place in relation to the various tasks which need to be performed in relation to the pension scheme and systems in place to monitor performance against these service levels. The service levels will not generally require immediate turn-round of requests from members. Members do need to recognise that a manager/administrator will deal with multiple requests from many members so not all requests can be turned round immediately
The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman would also expect a good manager/administrator to be pro-active if they are waiting for a response from a third party and not merely respond reactively as and when they are chased by members
The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman would also expect a manager/administrator to respond promptly to reasonable requests for information from members and deal with any complaints raised promptly and in accordance with an internal complaint procedure professionally and politely with a view to seeking to resolve the matter
Members should also seek to deal with matters politely and in a measured and proportionate fashion. If allegations are made in a public forum then they need to be in a position to justify them on grounds of truth or fair comment

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman concluded that there had been maladministration in relation to some of the delays but the waiver of half of Boal & Co’s fee amounting to £665 was in the order of what would have been awarded in respect of those delays and no further distress and inconvenience award was appropriate. In other words the distress and inconvenience sustained had already been adequately compensated for by Boal & Co when it responded to the complaint during the internal dispute resolution procedure.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman also determined, however, that the apology given was not adequate as it only covered part of the reason for the delay in appointing Mr N to take over responsibility for the investment decisions. The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman directed that a wider apology should be given.

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman did not uphold either the complaint that there were systemic failures in Boal & Co’s administrative systems or that Boal & Co had made untruthful statements or certain of the individual complaints about delays.