Mr S’s relationship with AJ Bell deteriorated after his request to pay a cheque of £8,640 ($12,204, €9,878) into his account went awry in July 2016.
Mr S had two accounts with AJ Bell, each with its own reference number. He wrote that the money was to be deposited in his Sipp but mistakenly used the reference number for his dealing account, into which the cheque was deposited.
What followed was a protracted to-and-fro with Mr S demanding compensation for the error, AJ Bell offering him seven trades free of charge and Mr S refusing and demanding £150 to be paid into his dealing account.
On this matter, the ombudsman apportioned blame to both parties, as Mr S used the wrong reference number but AJ Bell should have sought clarification of unclear instructions.
The funds were correctly deposited on 5 August and Mr S was unable to show that he suffered financial loss as a result of the delay.
Relationship breakdown
The situation between Mr S and AJ Bell soured to the point that the investment firm insisted that he move his Sipp to another provider.
Mr S sent a complaint to AJ Bell’s chief executive Andy Bell in October 2016 asking for compensation of £250 “for my time and unnecessary wasted time dealing with your untrained employees”.
A month later, he requested the £8,640 be refunded, which AJ Bell refused as it would breach HM Revenue & Customs’ rules around refunds and contributions.
Another complaint letter was sent in January 2017, in which Mr S repeated his demand for compensation.
AJ Bell’s customer services manager emailed Mr S on 27 January 2017 to say that, due the wording of Mr S’s recent complaint and his previous correspondence, it had become clear that the investment platform was no longer suitable for his needs.
The firm asked Mr S to transfer his business to an alternative provider, for which it would waive its usual fees.
In an unexpected twist, Mr S sent a cheque to AJ Bell in February. He was advised that it would be returned and, again, was asked to make arrangements to transfer elsewhere.
Another letter of complaint was sent in February 2017, following which he was given a 30-day deadline to initiate the transfer.
On 29 March, Mr S wrote again to the chief executive, refusing to transfer out until a full transfer audit was carried out.
A further cheque was then sent by, and returned to, Mr S.
On 26 April, chief executive Bell wrote to Mr S, saying: “You have, over the years, complained about our service on more occasions than I can care to remember. Whilst I have never reached this point before with any of our customers, I have reluctantly concluded that it would be best all-round if you transferred your benefits to another provider who can service your needs as required.”
Further correspondence was sent between Mr S and AJ Bell, with the firm suspending Mr S’s access to his account in June 2017.
Ombudsman
The complaint was passed to an adjudicator at the Pensions Ombudsman in July.
In August, Mr S requested to transfer £25,000 to another provider, which AJ Bell declined as it could only transfer the full sum and not a partial amount.
In its correspondence to the Ombudsman, AJ Bell said that some of Mr S’s allegations about the firm were similar to those he had made in 2015 when he was working as a financial adviser.
The adjudicator found in favour of AJ Bell, saying that the firm was correct not to refund the cheque for £8,640, it had responded to each complaint and that it was an unusual step for a company to turn away business, but it demonstrated how badly the relationships had deteriorated.
“Having been a financial adviser, Mr S should have been aware of the Sipp terms and conditions,” the adjudicator wrote.
“A transfer to another pension arrangement could have been implemented much more quickly, to draw a line under the matter for both parties, if Mr S had not refused to listen to what AJ was saying.”
Mr S did not accept the opinion, which was then passed to an ombudsman.
The ombudsman wrote: “The tone of the written correspondence between the parties in 2017 shows that AJ Bell’s unprecedented decision to terminate business with Mr S was not a premature one, and in my view it was not unreasonable.”
He upheld the adjudicator’s decision.
