Pension mismanagement, advise needed

debrabird

Keep_pedalling said:

debrabird said:

AnotherJoe said:

So thats different to your initial complaint, but maybe you do have a leg to stand on due to their tardiness / ignoring your request to sell up.

OTOH from your initial post you did nothing for nearly a year to get them to go into cash.

What was the value in May 2019 and how does that compare to the value when you did eventually sell?

That is true, however the loss of money is as an eventual result of the first issue, as it occurred whilst waiting for the FOS decision, but yes, the direct cause being that the request to put the pension on hold was not actioned. The loss was in excess of £40,000 (that is not a typo). I have a letter acknowledging my request to put it on hold. However I’m unsure as to wether this is enough to get they money back. 

Putting on hold is not the same thing as converting to cash. If you used that wording on your instruction then it nothing would be sold or purchased.

In some regards this could be true, however there was a understanding that this was what was meant my ‘put it on hold’ also the pension was not being drawn at the time and was not in the process of being drawn upon, leaving very little alternative meaning for the term ‘put it on hold’, the pension company knew this was what had been requested, despite any language used to describe the process. 

debrabird

Brynsam said:

debrabird said:

Marcon said:

debrabird said:

dunstonh said:

This was taken to the ombudsman in May 2019, and was waiting for there outcome, all this time, I had no advisor and no help whatsoever, when the markets dropped with Covid, my cautious fund, lost a lot of money, a lot more than I think a cautious fund should have lost.

And did it go up again after the markets recovered?

The ombudsman first decision is finding  for the pension company, which I have now, objected to, so it now going to a final decision.

This bit is confusing.    The company agreed to some redress but you turned it down as you wanted more.   The FOS has now ruled against you.  Is that in the whole outcome (i.e. you get nothing) or that the company's original offer was considered suitable?

 So much injustice has gone on here.

What injustice do you perceive?    It is unclear from your post as you appear to have been offered compensation but rejected it because you wanted more.    What exactly is the issue that is causing you problems?

Hi, because of having no advisor, I panicked and froze the fund, which is still the situation 
The company agreed at the very beginning to some redress, but I wanted the finders fee, also returned, they said no, and to take it to the ombudsman, which I did in May 2019.
So I have waited all this time for them to investigate the case, rightly or wrongly.
As far as the pension provider is concerned, the advisor had not actioned, any of my requests, to the draw down pension, I was a vulnerable client, as I had just gone through a very traumatic divorce, and he had lied and said they had been actioned, when he had done nothing of the sort, this left me in financial trouble, the trust with him and the company had been lost.
Hope this makes more sense.

This doesn't seem to tie up with your latest post. Not clear if you are complaining about the advisor or the pensions company.

If the situation is as simple as you describe - you asked for all your pension funds to be moved to a cash fund and no action was taken, and as a direct result of the lack of action you lost a lot of money - don't you think the ombudsman might have agreed with you?

The initial complaint was regarding the advisor, however what has happened as a result of the complaint (loss of money, see above) is the fault of the pension company, the FOS fails to see the connection, which is why I feel maybe a second separate complaint is required ie the loss of money. 

If FOS 'fail' to see the connection, it either suggests your complaint was made in a hopelessly confused/confusing fashion (in which case they would have asked you for clarification), or they have told you they don't see a connection. Which one is it?

They see a connection, but I believe that they don’t attribute the loss of money to be a direct result of the first complaint, rather it is a result of the request to put the pension on hold not being actioned, which doesn’t seem to be a consideration in their final decision (in other words, isn’t part of the first complaint).

debrabird

Malthusian said:

After ringing head office, they said no requests had been made by the advisor, I then raised a complaint against the advisor, which was acknowledged by head office, along with my request to put the pension on hold, this was never actioned.

In the context "put on hold" would most likely have been taken to mean "stop the income" or "stop the transfer of the pension into the new drawdown plan", not "switch into cash". Although it's not clear what exact words the OP used at the time.

More to the point, this happened in March 2019 or earlier (as the FOS complaint was made in May 2019), long before the Covid crash, so one way or another the fact that the OP was not in cash in February 2020 was not the adviser's fault - they'd been sacked many months ago. And the OP hasn't said they actually cashed out in a panic and missed the subsequent recovery, so it's not even clear that any loss has arisen.

The OP would need rock-solid grounds to challenge the FOS decision in a judicial review and it seems unlikely from the information given that there are any.

I see this point, however due to the investigation no income was being drawn at the time, neither was it in the process of being drawn upon. Hence leaving little other meaning for the term ‘put it on hold’, there was a common understanding at the time of the meaning of this phrase, that being that the pension be converted to cash value. 

This is of course a separate but related issue, caused by the pension company, not the advisor that took place just before the Covid crash, and during the investigation into the first complaint. Had the pension company actioned my request, I would not have lost that money.

Replies greatly appreciated.

NottinghamKnight

For clarity has your pension been put into cash or not and when. If it has when was this done, if not when do you believe this was requested. Most investments are now well above where they were pre Covid crash, so is your complaint that it was put into cash or not, and what investments were held, if you can provide details then people can advise if there has been a loss or not. How do you believe your 'loss' is quantified?

AnotherJoe

From what i can make out

1. the OP said "put it on hold" back in 2019 thinking this meant "sell everything and go to cash".

However, it would appear to the pension provider  (PP) it meant something else but not "sell", since they didnt do anything.

2. At the bottom of the covid crash in 2020  possibly a whole year later from (1), OP told P to sell and stay in cash which they did .

3. OP is now complaining that because PP didnt sell and go into cash in 2019 OP were affected by the 2020 crash and wants recompense.

IMO, since the OP didnt have to sell and could have stayed invested and woudl likely be back where they were start of Covid, this would seem to be down to them (OP) They also havent said why they did not contact PP and insist pension was put into cash at some other time time in 2019 after it didnt happen. Did they assume it had been?

 

debrabird

NottinghamKnight said:

For clarity has your pension been put into cash or not and when. If it has when was this done, if not when do you believe this was requested. Most investments are now well above where they were pre Covid crash, so is your complaint that it was put into cash or not, and what investments were held, if you can provide details then people can advise if there has been a loss or not. How do you believe your 'loss' is quantified?

It was requested to be put into Cash at the very beginning in 2019, this was not carried out. After the loss In 2020, I made the request a second time , which was carried out. So had the first request been actioned, then I would not have lost that money. 

debrabird

AnotherJoe said:

From what i can make out

1. the OP said "put it on hold" back in 2019 thinking this meant "sell everything and go to cash".

However, it would appear to the pension provider  (PP) it meant something else but not "sell", since they didnt do anything.

2. At the bottom of the covid crash in 2020  possibly a whole year later from (1), OP told P to sell and stay in cash which they did .

3. OP is now complaining that because PP didnt sell and go into cash in 2019 OP were affected by the 2020 crash and wants recompense.

IMO, since the OP didnt have to sell and could have stayed invested and woudl likely be back where they were start of Covid, this would seem to be down to them (OP) They also havent said why they did not contact PP and insist pension was put into cash at some other time time in 2019 after it didnt happen. Did they assume it had been?

 

Your points are generally correct. Yes I did assume that the request had been carried out, as there was a common understanding with the pension company as to what was meant. I assumed that them being a reputable company, that the request had been carried out. 

Malthusian

debrabird said:

I see this point, however due to the investigation no income was being drawn at the time, neither was it in the process of being drawn upon.

Hence leaving little other meaning for the term ‘put it on hold’,

I am going by post #1 where you said that you had "decided to put it in a draw down pension", and the adviser claimed this had been done, but in reality it hadn't been. Therefore there was still an outstanding instruction on your part to put it in a draw down pension. Under those circumstances the most common interpretation of "put it on hold" would be that it referred to that outstanding instruction.

Part of the problem is that "put it on hold" is not commonly understood to mean "switch it into cash" so even if there had been no other possible interpretations, usually the pension company wouldn't have switched into cash, they would have asked for clarification.

there was a common understanding at the time of the meaning of this phrase, that being that the pension be converted to cash value.

"Put on hold" is not commonly understood in the finance industry to mean "switch into cash". If you mean there was a common understanding between the pension company and yourself that that was what you meant, you'd need evidence to persuade a third party that the two of you had that common understanding for the third party to apply the same interpretation. Even if there was, an outsider could still say that at most, the company had a duty to seek clarification, not switch into cash.

Yes I did assume that the request had been carried out, as there was a common understanding with the pension company as to what was meant. I assumed that them being a reputable company, that the request had been carried out.

Why did you assume that? Genuine question. When people switch investments into cash they get a contract note confirming it has been done, whether by post, email or online inbox.

If you give an ambiguous instruction and don't receive any confirmation that they carried it out in the way you meant, and you still hadn't checked whether they'd done it at least eleven months later (between early 2019 and February 2020), the chance of the recipient being held fully liable for the misunderstanding diminishes rapidly.

Stepping back from the nitty-gritty of interpretation, your problem essentially is that when anyone panics and cashes in their pension at the bottom of the market, then says "I should already have been in cash when the crash started", any outsider is going to assume by default that they are trying it on. (Or, more charitably, rewriting history to suit themselves.) To overcome that assumption they need rock solid evidence that they should have been in cash - say, a copy of an instruction given to the pension company in December 2019 and acknowledgement by the pension company or proof of posting. What you have is an ambiguous instruction a year before which isn't enough.

This is why I can't see any way forward that achieves getting the Ombudsman to change its decision.

dunstonh

there was a common understanding at the time of the meaning of this phrase, that being that the pension be converted to cash value.

I would concur with the above.    I have never heard the phrase "putting it on hold" to refer to doing a fund switch to cash.  Putting it on hold would generally mean stop any transactions or work being carried out at the moment and leave it as it is.

Stepping back from the nitty-gritty of interpretation, your problem essentially is that when anyone panics and cashes in their pension at the bottom of the market, then says "I should already have been in cash when the crash started", any outsider is going to assume by default that they are trying it on. (Or, more charitably, rewriting history to suit themselves.) To overcome that assumption they need rock solid evidence that they should have been in cash - say, a copy of an instruction given to the pension company in December 2019 and acknowledgement by the pension company or proof of posting. What you have is an ambiguous instruction a year before which isn't enough.

In addition, a lot of providers and platforms issue quarterly statements now.   So, in that case, there would likely have been several statements issued showing the holdings were not in cash.  So, why was no action taken earlier when it was seen that the investments were not in cash?  Perhaps it was because they were going up nicely in 2019?

The ombudsman looks at the credibility of arguments where evidence is not available.    It may have to rely on a balance of probability but the wording used is very much open to interpretation and not wording that is used when doing a fund switch.  it may well be unreasonable to expect a firm to carry out a fund switch to cash using a phrase that does not actually request that.

foofi22

If you wanted to convert to cash at the beginning of 2019 then you will have missed out on the growth throughout that year.

I suppose, looking at an all world tracker (obviously your investments may vary), it shows that the Covid crash resulted in markets going back to early 2019 levels - so maybe you haven't "lost" that much at all.