The adjudicator accepted that Curtis Banks had made a reasonable offer to settle the complaint but had caused considerable delays and had not responsed to requests for further information.
The decision was that the complaint should be upheld and, in addition to the offer made by Curtis Banks, the Sipp provider should also pay Mr D £750 for “the significant distress and inconvenience he experienced”.
Appeal
Curtis Banks did not accept the adjudicator’s opinion, in particular the level of compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The company provided additional comments but Pensions Ombudsman Anthony Arter said they “do not change the outcome”.
Curtis Banks did not dispute that maladministration had occurred, which meant that Arter was only responsible for deciding whether the firm had provided adequate redress.
He found it reasonable that Mr D was reluctant to accept Curtis Banks’ offer without first being reassured as to what it entailed.
He could see no persuasive reason why Curtis Banks could not have provided such a simple clarification. He also criticised the company for causing an avoidable delay of almost four months.
Curtis Banks has been ordered to implement to pension sharing order by transferring the commercial property asset into Mr D’s Sipp on the terms set out by the firm’s initial offer on 13 March 2017 and without cost to Mr D.
They must also pay him £750.
