First posted: Sunday 22 October 2023. Last revised: Sunday 29 October 2023.
Hosted by ITNetUK, Carnforth.
Visitors to this web page would best begin at the end, with the e-mail dated Monday 24 January 2022 from me to The Pensions Ombudsman. This, because that e-mail provides a succinct introduction to the matter in hand. Thereafter, feel free to refer to whatever else is of interest.
For ease of navigation, I would have preferred the section headings in the left frame of this web page to be collapsible. But, without much additional time and effort, I cannot achieve this. As readily achievable alternatives in this particular respect, I have uploaded two additional files, as follows.
(1) A docx file, best opened in Word, and viewed in Web Layout, which includes the content in the right frame of this web page, plus the content at the head of the left frame. You can navigate using the Navigation Pane (Word's automatic left frame with collapsible headings).
You can access it <here>, for downloading, and open it accordingly.
This file can also be opened in LibreOffice Writer, viewed as Web, and similarly navigated using the Navigator pane. But you will need to work harder than in Word.
(2) A pdf version of the docx file. You can navigate it using the Bookmarks pane (Adobe Reader). You can access it <here>.
Primarily, what
follows below is the content of a letter dated Monday 3 January 2022 from
me to Paul Reilly, Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service, in response to his
"Final decision".
Mr Reilly's
"Final decision" concerned my complaints about obstruction and incompetence
at Hartley Pensions, Bristol, in the administration of my SIPP. My letter (Monday 3 January 2022) not
only details those complaints but it also lays bare the subsequent obstruction
and incompetence of the Financial Ombudsman Service in supposedly addressing
them.
As a result
of later developments, the entire exercise was futile: because not only had
ThinCats entered administration (on Thursday 15 April 2021, as noted
below), but Hartley Pensions subsequently entered administration also (on Friday
29 July 2022). As such, my SIPP
funds are no longer monitored by Hartley Pensions; instead, they now lie at the
mercy of insolvency practitioners.
So why
publish this account? Because - as you
can see in the letter below - I expressed my firm intention to do so. (I shall get no benefit whatsoever - quite
the opposite - from exposing this multitudinous obstruction and incompetence,
but it may be of some benefit to someone.)
Monday
3 January 2022
Dear Mr Reilly
Hartley
Pensions, Bristol: Obstructive and Incompetent
Final
Decision
To benefit from the headings
incorporated in this letter, if you are viewing it in Word format, please be
sure to have the Navigation Pane open.
Also, you might find it helpful to use Word's split window facility, or
you may prefer to open two windows.
If you are viewing this letter in
pdf format, please be sure to open Bookmarks in the panel on the left.
I have my doubts - amounting near
enough to certainty - that you will choose to read this letter, and I consider
it most unlikely that I shall get a reply.
Before you consign it to the bin, however, you might at least search for
the next two occurrences of *, which I have used to mark an "astonishing
volte-face" by you concerning what you first thought would be a "fair
approach" (in your rôle as adjudicator).
In other respects, also, you would
do well to give this letter careful attention.
It appears to be intended (according to Chris du Casse, 6 December 2021) to publish what is an inaccurate - dishonest - account of events on the Financial Ombudsman Service website. And I note that he has already - disgracefully - sent a copy of that account to Hartley Pensions.
I have
previously exposed one lot of institutional dishonesty on one of my web pages: Dishonesty (and Cover-Up) at Warton Parish Council.
As things stand, I shall be adding another such page to my website. Which is the main reason why I have made
considerable effort to present an accurate version of events in this letter.
I have provided a copy of this
letter to Mr du Casse and Sarah Milne because the matter concerns them
also. And, because I have needed to make
passing mention of her in the letter, I have provided a copy to Jennifer Moody.
The appendix contains my annotated
transcript of your "Final decision" dated 6 December 2021. The annotations include exact dates, to allow
efficient cross-referencing, and highlighting. This last,
among other purposes, draws attention to numerous mistakes of yours in reaching
that decision, which is consequently ill-founded, muddled and confused in
respect of annuity purchase in particular.
In your decision you make frequent
reference to "terms and conditions", but fail to identify
sufficiently carefully which of the various documents you are referring to.
You also write that "One of our
investigators has looked at Mr E's complaint". In fact, there have been three such (prior to
you).
For the record, I have provided a
definitive account below in these last two respects.
But first below is Some
Clarification of the Muddied Waters.
These three sections are followed by
my well-founded Conclusion.
NOTE
In what follows, current editorial comment, or annotation, (by me) is
set apart in brackets []. Where there is
previous such comment or annotation, in my transcripts I have used braces {} to
identify that comment as historical.
My Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP (or Low Cost EvolutionSIPP), exclusive to ThinCats, was
established on 10 December 2015. It
was a direct offer, or execution only SIPP, and available only via SIPPclub (Brian Bennis).
There was - and probably still is -
a full version EvolutionSIPP which allowed investment in a variety of asset
classes, and which cost more than the Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP. Both versions of the
EvolutionSIPP appear to have the encompassing title of Greyfriars Preferred
Retirement Account.
Initially, my Single Asset Version
of EvolutionSIPP was operated by Greyfriars Asset Management, Leicester. They entered administration on
23 October 2018.
On 1 November 2018 I received a
letter dated 29 October 2018 from Denis McHugh, Chief Executive Officer,
Hartley Pensions, Bristol. This included
the following two paragraphs.
I would like to welcome you to Hartley
Pensions Limited as the new operator of your SIPP. ...
These changes will not have any impact on
the investments, day to day administration and fees of your SIPP.
In the letter dated 5 December
2019 from Gareth D'Arcy, Hartley Pensions, to me, there is allusion to, and
questionable expansion upon, this declaration by Mr McHugh, as follows.
... the Greyfriars client base was acquired
by Hartley Pensions Ltd and all clients were written to [29 October 2018]
explaining the novation to [mistake for transfer to] the new SIPP
operator. Upon novation [substitution of
a new obligation for the one existing], all existing terms and conditions
remained unchanged and no prior liability was accepted.
ESF Capital (European Speciality
Finance) took out a majority stake in ThinCats in December 2015. They changed the business model, such that,
by early-2019, investment opportunities on ThinCats for individuals (retail
investors) had fallen dramatically: all-but dried up. And so I began seriously to seek to expand my
SIPP options, to include Assetz Capital and / or RateSetter (an effort
tentatively begun 18 November 2018, and concluded 5 September 2019).
It was during this widespread and
persistent search - by enquiring directly with several likely SIPP operators /
providers for one that offered the possibility of investment on more than one
peer-to-peer platform within a single SIPP (I found only one) - that I began to
have my doubts about Hartley Pensions. I
got the impression that they were deliberately obstructive concerning the
Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP.
And when I pressed my enquiries with them I also got the impression that
they were incompetent in their administration of it.
ThinCats entered administration on
15 April 2021.
I made my first formal complaint to
Hartley Pensions on 15 October 2019.
This was soon augmented: 26 November 2019, 28 November 2019,
29 November 2019.
The response by Mr D'Arcy
(5 December 2019) was all-but comprehensively unsatisfactory. I replied on 7 January 2020, but got
neither acknowledgement nor reply.
I referred my complaint(s) to the
Financial Ombudsman Service on 9 March 2020. I got the first incorrect assessment (verbal)
on 23 March 2021.
I summarise my complaints here - in
the order in which they are expressed in the letter dated 9 March 2020
from me to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
What follows in the next five
sections is for completeness. If the
details are initially of little interest, feel free to jump straight to the
last - most significant and readily understood - of these sections: Fee for
Annuity Purchase.
Mostly, I stand by my historical
charges of deliberate obstruction and incompetence by Hartley Pensions. (I could be forgiven for suspecting - a
fortiori - that the same charges could be levelled at the Financial Ombudsman
Service, as this letter testifies, several times over. As an incontrovertible example, search for
RL360.)
I first formed the impression of
deliberate obstruction by Hartley Pensions concerning the Single Asset Version
of EvolutionSIPP as a result of them being so poor at responding to enquiries
(18 November 2018 to 5 September 2019).
In the letter dated 9 March
2020 from me to the Financial Ombudsman Service, I gave "five specific
examples of what I regard as their incompetence". I can maintain (without question) only three
of these, and it is not worthwhile to repeat them here, except that which is
incidental to the cavalier withdrawal of £2419.89, next.
On 28 November 2019 I enquired
with ThinCats:
Why the withdrawal of £2419.89, dated
28 November 2019, please?
I was told - much to my surprise and
annoyance - that the withdrawal (from my ThinCats account to my Cater Allen
account) had been requested by Alexander Batt, Hartley Pensions. I protested accordingly (primarily about the
manner of the withdrawal) on 29 November 2019. Mr Batt's response caused me to add to
the catalogue of formal complaints to Hartley Pensions.
NOTE 1
In response to these complaints, the letter dated 5 December 2019
from Mr D'Arcy to me, includes the following paragraph (which is accurately
transcribed).
I understand there has been some confusion
around your annual fee for this year, I must first apologise as we would
normally look to send out an invoice showing that you have insufficient funds
before processing a withdrawal in order to make up the shortfall. This hasn't happened on this occasion, so I
would like to thank you for bringing this to my attention, it has been fed back
to the relevant department.
NOTE 2
In the letter dated 7 January 2020 from me to Mr D'Arcy, there
is the following.
... I have received (13 December 2019)
an Insufficient Funds letter dated December 2019, with invoice dated
30 November 2019 attached. If this
is not incompetence ... [when the necessary funds had been extracted by
Mr Batt on 28 November 2019], what is it?
In part because I suspect Hartley
Pensions have failed to make due distinction between costs for the Low Cost
EvolutionSIPP and the full version EvolutionSIPP, I believe that the following was substantially
justifiable.
In brief: either the minimum level of cash
in my Cater Allen account can be £1000 (as in the Schedule of Fees, Single
Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP); or, in the present circumstances, it can be £0
(as argued in my letter dated 7 January 2020).
Events, however, have cancelled the
£0 alternative.
And, because Hartley Pensions can
legitimately alter the rules, regardless of what might be considered fair and
appropriate, probably the £1000 alternative must also be abandoned.
It is not at all clear - to me -
from the Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP, what the
one-off fee for a cash withdrawal should be.
In response to my specific and
unambiguous enquiry (21 October 2015), Mr Bennis replied, in effect:
£125 + VAT = £150. Or, in his own words:
"Extracting a lump sum is a pension payment and so will incur a drawdown
charge of £125 [+ VAT] per year".
On the other hand, Hartley Pensions
maintain (1 November 2019, 4 November 2019, 25 November 2019) that
the fee is £250 + VAT = £300; "Calculation and initial payment of benefits
per crystallisation".
In his response (5 December
2019) to my several complaints, Mr D'Arcy failed to address this matter.
Justice surely requires that the fee
should be, as first advised, £125 + VAT = £150.
In respect of annuity purchase, the
Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP, is perfectly clear:
"Annuity purchase: £175 [+ VAT]".
As a matter of form, I enquired with
Mr Bennis (21 October 2015) about annuity purchase with a third
party, and he confirmed the above figure.
The Greyfriars Preferred Retirement
Account ... Key Features Document states (p [4]): Lifetime Annuity:
"Under this option ... monies [are] transferred to an insurance company of
your choice".
NOTE
This document was superseded when Hartley Pensions became "the new
operator of your SIPP" (by 1 November 2018).
The corresponding wording of the
(revised) Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account is
closely similar (p 4): "monies are transferred to an insurance
company of your choice".
Hartley Pensions, however, maintain
(25 November 2019, 26 November 2019, 28 November 2019) that the
fee is £250 + VAT = £300; "We do not offer annuities, so if you are
wishing to purchase an annuity this would need to be done as a cash transfer
out to the annuity provider"; "we do not offer annuities so the
'annuity purchase' fee cannot be applied".
In his response (5 December
2019) to my several complaints, Mr D'Arcy made the offer of annuity
purchase at £175 [+ VAT] as "a concession on this occasion" - ie,
once only. Which is surely out of order.
There are two lots of terms and
conditions to be considered, as follows.
The terms and conditions at
inception (10 December 2015) consisted of two documents, as follows.
Schedule of Fees, Single Asset
Version of EvolutionSIPP. (Dated
31 July 2015. 2 pp,
unnumbered.)
My copy of this document was
received from Mr Bennis, acting on behalf of Greyfriars Asset Management,
on 4 November 2015. I signed and
dated that copy on 30 November 2015, and sent it to Greyfriars Asset Management
as part of my application. They returned
the original to me with a letter dated 11 December 2015 which confirmed me
as a client.
The following is a list of all fees payable
... for the administration of the SIPP [ie, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP]. They ... enable you to clearly see the costs
of running your SIPP ...
If you diversify into other assets [than
those on the ThinCats platform], you'll be switched to EvolutionSIPP under a
separate Schedule of Fees. ... (p [1])
Annuity purchase: £175 ...
Please read these notes carefully and
ensure that you understand them fully before signing your agreement to the fees
below. ...
1.
All fees are subject to VAT at the prevailing rate.
2.
All fees are reviewed annually and GAM [Greyfriars Asset Management] may
increase the fees: GAM will inform you of any increases in fees and when they
will be applied.
3.
Fees will be deducted directly from the member's [Cater Allen] SIPP bank
account after presentation of an invoice.
4.
GAM will advise you when fees are due and when they will be taken.
5. A
minimum level of cash of £1000 needs to be retained in the [Cater Allen] SIPP
bank account. (p [2])
This document is very largely still
applicable.
The Greyfriars Preferred Retirement
Account (GPRA), A Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP), Key Features
Document. (Probably, dated July
2015. 7 pp, unnumbered.)
Greyfriars sent me a copy of this
document with a letter dated 11 December 2015 which confirmed me as a
client. The document used to be
available via the Greyfriars website (when that existed), but I can find no
exact copy of this document currently on line.
While this document is intended to be an accurate
summary of the key features of the scheme, in the event of any discrepancy
between it (or any similar literature) and the scheme Rules, the Rules will
prevail. ... (p [1]) ...
Lifetime Annuity:
Under this option ... monies [are]
transferred to an insurance company of your choice ... There are several different types of annuity,
each of which can be tailored to your personal requirements. ... (p [4])
I expect the "Rules" were
available via the Greyfriars website, or on request.
This document was superseded - by
Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account - when Hartley
Pensions became "the new operator of your SIPP" (by 1 November
2018).
There are
three associated, but distinct, documents which need to be consulted for the
current terms and conditions. In
chronological order of applicability, they are as follows.
Schedule of
Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP.
This is the
document already noted above, in Terms and Conditions at Inception.
Terms and Conditions for the Hartley
Pensions ... SIPPS
Terms and
Conditions for the Hartley Pensions Limited ("Hartley") SIPPS. (Dated May 2018. 19 pp, unnumbered.)
This
document is downloadable from the section headed Key Features Documents on the Literature
page of the Hartley Pensions website.
Currently, the document is indicated as modified 31 July 2018,
though the document itself carries the date May 2018 on the final page.
10.1 The administration charges are detailed in
the Key Features Document relevant to your Hartley SIPP [viz, Key Features of
the Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account, next]. ... (p [9])
Key Features of the Greyfriars
Preferred Retirement Account
Key
Features of the Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account. (No date; written during tax year 2018/19
(p 3). 7 pp.)
This
document is also downloadable from the section headed Key Features Documents on
the Literature
page of the Hartley Pensions website - where it is labelled "Greyfriars
Key Features Document" (modified 16 April 2019).
... [you will]
pay our fees promptly as outlined within our fee schedule [viz, Schedule of
Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP], as amended from time to
time. ... (p 1) ...
... An annuity: your SIPP assets are sold and the
monies are transferred to an insurance company of your choice, who will pay you
a regular, taxable, income throughout your lifetime. There are several different types of annuity,
each of which can be tailored to your personal requirements. ... (p 4) ...
The SIPP fees are
taken annually in adviance [sic] on the SIPP anniversary date. The SIPP fees are detailed in the current
SIPP Fee Schedule [viz, Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP] which is available from your financial adviser or Hartley
Pensions Limited. All fees are subject
to VAT and may increase with RPI. The
SIPP fees are not based on the performance of the investment.
All fees are
reviewed regularly and can be subject to change. Any changes to the SIPP fees will be
announced 30 days prior to these changes coming into effect.
If investments
within the SIPP are not income generating then a minimum level of cash in the
SIPP bank account or readily realisable assets of £2000 needs to be retained in
the SIPP.
An invoice for
the annual SIPP fees will only be provided if there are insufficient funds in
your SIPP and alternative arrangements are required to settle the fees. An invoice can still be provided upon
request. ...
The SIPP [Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account
(GPRA)] was established under master trust deeds and sets of rules,
copies of which can be made available on request. ...
Your SIPP will
maintain a separate bank account with Cater Allen bank which will be controlled
by Hartley. ... (p 6)
Prior to the adjudication by
Mr Reilly (6 December 2021), there have been three investigators
who have "looked at"
my complaint (9 March 2020).
In an e-mail dated 20 November
2020, Ms Moody announced that she would "be the investigator looking
into this complaint whilst it is with the Financial Ombudsman". Next, she sent me a holding e-mail dated
14 December 2020, and a substantive e-mail dated 16 December 2020,
when she appeared to have the matter well in hand. I replied to this last e-mail the same day
(16 December 2020), including the following paragraph, in response to her
request.
I have not retained any of the e-mails that
passed between Mr Bennis and me during that period [20 October 2015
to 9 December 2015]; only copies of my own records made at the time. I have appended below - in full - copies of
such records dated 20 October 2015 and 21 October 2015. (Whether Mr Bennis might have retained
such e-mails, I do not know. In my
experience, he replies very quickly to enquiries.)
I heard no more from Ms Moody.
Mr du Casse gave advance notice
of his (first faulty) assessment in a telephone call on 23 March 2021.
He gave a revised assessment in an
e-mail dated 25 March 2021. It,
too, was faulty.
He gave a further revised assessment
in an e-mail dated 13 July 2021.
And it, too, was faulty.
I have kept a comprehensive record
of communication - both ways - in a Word file, Financial Ombudsman
Service.docx. It includes the following.
Chris du Casse ... telephoned 11.39 am
Tuesday 23 March 2021 and left a message.
He is handling my complaint, replacing Jen Moody. Wants a "quick chat". ...
{This caused me to check my file.}
He called again at 2.07 pm for nearly
25min (during which I had my file open in front of me). Quality of service from Hartley Pensions is
not within Financial Ombudsman Service remit (not being a regulator). Increase in fees is Hartley Pensions'
prerogative - which I dispute because of letter dated 29 October 2018 from
Denis McHugh (which I could not readily access, and which I doubt I have copied
to Financial Ombudsman Service). {I also
suspect no consideration for distinction between Low Cost EvolutionSIPP and
full version EvolutionSIPP.} I said I
preferred to deal with this in writing.
He will write, allowing me to check his assessment, and reply.
My impression of Mr du Casse at
this time did not inspire confidence; instead, it immediately brought into
question his competence. I reported on
his telephone call in the letter dated 30 March 2021 from me to Mr du
Casse, as follows.
During the call [23 March 2021], you
said that Hartley Pensions had paid me compensation of £175, and you considered
this to be adequate recompense. I said
that no such transaction had occurred (and I do not see how you could properly
have concluded that it had). What is
your explanation for having said what you did?
[He apologised (13 July 2021), but gave no explanation.] ...
Also during the call, you said that an
increase in fees is Hartley Pensions' prerogative. To which I responded that there should be no
such increase because of what is stated in the letter dated 29 October
2018 from Denis McHugh. ... I have attached a copy of his letter in full,
and its accompanying enclosure, to the e-mail transmitting this letter to you.
Furthermore, you did not ask me to what
extent I have been financially impeded (including possible historical and
continuing loss, and certain future loss if Hartley Pensions are allowed to
continue to misbehave) as you imply in your e-mail dated (Thursday)
25 March 2021. (I shall not expand
upon this for now, except to say how much I prefer to have proper records, in
writing.)
The e-mail dated 25 March 2021
from Mr du Casse to me includes the following.
In a letter [29 October 2018;
Mr McHugh] that HL [Hartley Pensions Limited] sent to all it's [sic] new
customers, as we discussed, HL confirmed that all existing terms and conditions
remained unchanged and no prior liability was accepted.
Here, Mr du Casse demonstrates his
tenuous understanding of what is clearly stated in the letter dated
29 October 2018 from Mr McHugh (which makes no mention of "prior
liability"), and the questionable expansion upon that statement in the
letter dated 5 December 2019 from Mr D'Arcy to me. Mr du Casse merges these two versions as
if a fait accompli.
The e-mail dated 25 March 2021
from Mr du Casse to me includes the following.
... under the terms and conditions of
maintaining your SIPP the following condition applies:
"All fees shall be taken from any cash
holdings held within your SIPP bank account.
Should there be insufficient cash holdings, then the relevant sum shall
be disinvested from your holdings in any investment platform where
possible."
Here, Mr du Casse quotes from
§10 Charges, in the document Terms and Conditions for
the RL360 SIPP as Provided and Operated by Hartley Pensions Limited. As such, his statement is faulty (wrong; not
applicable; a further demonstration of incompetence).
The applicable terms and conditions
concerning fees are in: (1) Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP; together with (2) Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred
Retirement Account. Neither of these two
documents mentions disinvestment (from the investment platform (ThinCats); nor
the extraction of cash therefrom). I
have quoted the relevant sections in Terms and Conditions (Single Asset Version
of EvolutionSIPP), above.
In the letter dated 30 March
2021 from me to Mr du Casse I noted the following.
For now, in further response to your e-mail
dated 25 March 2021, I shall comment only on the last paragraph under your
heading "Did Hartley Pensions Limited do what it should have done?":
Finally, with regard to the annuity fee,
you are correct in stating that the fee for this is £175.00. However, when dealing with a request of this
nature, there are also associated fees, which are detailed in the Schedule of
Fees, of which you have a copy. The
associated fees are detailed under the heading "Taking Benefits" and
this states that the fee for the calculation and initial payment of benefits
per crystallisation is £250.00.
First, there is a hint progress, in that
you almost acknowledge that I am correct in maintaining that the one-off fee
for annuity purchase with a third party is £175 + VAT = £210. This is in direct contradiction of what I
have been told repeatedly by Hartley Pensions: "We do not offer annuities,
so if you are wishing to purchase an annuity this would need to be done as a
cash transfer out to the annuity provider"; "we do not offer
annuities so the 'annuity purchase' fee cannot be applied". And so they propose to charge £250 + VAT =
£300. ...
But then you introduce muddle and confusion
with the two sentences "However ... £250.00." (I do not see any basis in the Schedule of
Fees, as signed by me on 30 November 2015, that would justify the
substance of these sentences. Would you
please explain, or correct.)
As they stand, the implication of the two
sentences is that in addition to £175 + VAT = £210 there will be an
"associated" fee of £250 + VAT = £300. Total cost £425 + VAT = £510 for annuity
purchase. That cannot be true.
I had several points of disagreement
concerning the e-mail dated 13 July 2021 from Mr du Casse to me.
For present purposes, I shall
reproduce here only the following remarks (on the fee for annuity purchase) by
Mr du Casse.
As you rightly point out, Hartley do not
offer annuities, so you have questioned why they would charge a fee for this
service [I have questioned no such thing; only the size of the fee].
It is my understanding that Hartley has
already explained this to you, but for the sake of clarity, I have included
their explanation below:
"This concerns interpretation of
the Single Asset Evolution SIPP schedule of fees [Schedule of Fees, Single
Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP]. Hartley
Pensions does not offer annuities, therefore, for clients who wish to do so, we
treat it as a cash transfer to another provider, therefore, Mr Edge was
quoted £250 plus VAT as per the fee schedule.
The fee schedule [Schedule of Fees, Single
Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP] also includes a line within the Taking Benefits
section showing "Annuity purchase £175" + VAT and we confirmed this
in our Final Response Letter [5 December 2019], however, this should be
seen in the wider context of the process required for the client to take
benefits from his scheme.
In order to take benefits from his scheme
the scheme administrator will have to perform a benefit calculation which has a
separate charge of £250 + VAT. On taking
the benefits chosen the clients pension would then be defined as entering
drawdown – the establishment of flexible drawdown has a one off charge of £500
+ VAT and an additional Annual Pension Drawdown Administration Fee of £125 +
VAT per annum is added to his Annual Management Fee.
The letter dated 26 July 2021
from me to Mr du Casse includes the following response to these remarks.
And now for the preposterous and outrageous
nonsense in the matter you quote [13 July 2021], apparently from a
communication you have received from Hartley Pensions.
Not in their wildest evasions and
exaggerations has anyone at Hartley Pensions proposed to me a rip-off on the
scale indicated in that quoted matter.
So how you can claim "It is my understanding that Hartley has
already explained this to you", I do not know. Please justify your claim. [He did not do so.]
Also, would you please provide me with a
copy in full of the original communication.
[He did not do so.] I am
interested to see not just the content in full but also the date of the
communication, and who was its perpetrator.
Fact: annuity purchase requires merely the
transfer of cash already sitting in my Cater Allen account to my chosen annuity
provider. Dead simple (a single
instruction). It does not require a
benefit calculation, with its charge.
Neither is it a flexible drawdown, so there is no question of invoking
that particular option's one-off initial charge and subsequent annual fee. (How can you possibly permit Hartley Pensions
to bamboozle you to this extent? More
testimony of incompetence, it seems - or bias?
Why should I have to press so hard, persistently, and repeatedly for
justice in the face of such obvious roguery?)
Another fact: I had anticipated the
possibility of additional fees in my enquiry of Mr Bennis on
21 October 2015. There are
none. In particular, the cost of annuity
purchase with a third party is, quite simply, £175 + VAT = £210. You will find the full record of my exchange
with Mr Bennis in the appendix to the letter dated 16 December 2020
from me to Ms Moody ...
The e-mail dated 27 September
2021 from Mr du Casse to me includes "an ombudsman will review the
complaint [9 March 2020] and make a decision".
The e-mail dated 6 December
2021 from Mr du Casse to me includes the following.
The ombudsman has now made a final decision
about your complaint. I've enclosed the
final decision [Complainant.Decision.pdf dated 6 December 2021] – and I've
also sent a copy to Hartley Pensions Limited.
For justification of the next
heading - Confusion Worse Confounded - concerning Ms Milne's intervention,
search the appendix for Milne and / or "muddle and confusion".
Note also her blunder concerning
Mr Bennis.
The e-mail dated 10 August 2021
from Ms Milne to me, in which she asked me to respond to Mr du Casse,
includes the following.
I've reviewed your response [26 July
2021] to the second view [13 July 2021] of your complaint [9 March
2020] issued by Chris du Casse. I'm
Chris's line manager and an ombudsman here.
...
Your complaint was initially allocated to
Jen Moody another investigator in my team, but had to be reallocated to Chris
for operational reasons [a content-free "explanation"]. ...
As Chris has already issued two views
[25 March 2021; 13 July 2021] which didn't uphold your complaint
[9 March 2020] despite your further comments [30 March 2021;
26 July 2021], the next step would be to refer to an ombudsman for a
decision. ...
I've briefly reviewed the evidence on the
file, Chris's views and the comments you've made in response. ...
... Brian Bennis of SIPP Club, (an
unauthorised introducer [in fact, the only person so-authorised, in a
contract with Greyfriars Asset Management]), ...
...
Hartley has explained if a consumer wishes to take benefits as an
annuity they would need to transfer their funds in cash to an appropriate
provider. Hartley's standard fee for a
cash transfer is £250 + VAT plus the annuity fee of £175 + VAT [muddle and
confusion]. ...
... all ombudsmen are independent and if
you still wish to progress your case to decision the ombudsman will review the
whole file afresh and won't be bound by anything Chris or I have said. But I thought it was worth letting you know
my thoughts about the prospects for success of your complaint.
Responding to this e-mail from
Ms Milne, the letter dated 18 August 2021 from me to Mr du Casse
includes the following.
I could take issue with several statements
in Ms Milne's message. Some of
these statements are relatively trivial, and I shall make no comment on them
...
Concerning the more important matters
addressed in Ms Milne's statements, it would be repetitious for me to
dispute her observations in each case (because I maintain the position(s) I
have previously and clearly stated - and fully and properly justified). Instead, I make a more general response, in
three respects, as follows [lack of attention to detail; Mr Bennis;
annuity purchase, muddle and confusion].
...
Unless you are able to acknowledge the
truth of the matter and begin to act accordingly, or unless Ms Milne can
substantiate her [false] assertion concerning Mr Bennis, we have arrived
at the point noted in your e-mail dated 13 July 2021: "If I can't
resolve things then an ombudsman here can look at everything again and make a
final decision."
I received the "Final
decision" of Mr Reilly via e-mail from Mr du Casse.
That decision is riddled with
mistakes and shortcomings.
See appendix.
For present purposes, let us
concentrate on one only of my complaints: that concerning the fee for annuity
purchase.
It is quite evident that three of
the four agents, acting on behalf of the Financial Ombudsman Service, have bent
over backwards to set truth aside in favour of Hartley Pensions. Not least, the blunder by your fellow
ombudsman, Ms Milne, in labelling Mr Bennis "an unauthorised
introducer" is the exact opposite of the truth.
There have been other clear
manifestations of incompetence, culminating in the case of Mr du Casse by
his tying himself in knots over a figure for the fee for annuity purchase (to which
muddle and confusion Ms Milne contributed her second blunder). This was glossed over by you - with
absolutely no clear outcome other than rejection of the truth. (That you are biased not merely in favour of
Hartley Pensions, but also of the unquestionably faulty, muddled and confused
assessments by Mr du Casse, is illustrated neatly by your echoing his
mistake of £418.89 for £419.89 - which is otherwise trivial.)
The Financial Ombudsman Service
needs to acknowledge the truth, withdraw the decision dated 6 December
2021 which is riddled with mistakes and shortcomings (already disgracefully
copied to Hartley Pensions), and issue a truthful amendment. Otherwise, I shall be publishing an accurate
version of events on my website: millhead.co.uk.
Yours
sincerely
David
Edge
David A
Edge
This appendix contains my Word
transcript of Mr Reilly's "Final decision" dated 6 December
2021 (issued as a pdf file, Complainant.Decision.pdf). The Financial Ombudsman Service reference is
PNX-3595986-T9V4.
I have Word-formatted
Mr Reilly's headings, retaining his capitalisation, so that they appear in
the Navigation Pane. I have not altered
the words of his text (including two typographical errors), nor the
punctuation, some of which is lacking.
Within my annotation - and only
within that annotation - ie, within brackets []:
(a) by using highlighting, I have drawn attention to, and
corrected, numerous mistakes by Mr Reilly;
(b) I have similarly drawn attention to some
remarks of his, and / or associated comments by me; and
(c) I have added, and underlined, to help the
eye, exact dates.
Mr E
complains [9 March 2020] that Hartley Pensions Limited has failed
to treat him fairly in the administration of his self-invested personal pension
(SIPP). In particular he complains that;
() Hartley has failed to
respond to his queries and problems in a timely manner
() The fees that Hartley
is charging for transfers to another party in order to purchase an annuity are
not in line with its published charges [Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version
of EvolutionSIPP].
() Hartley has made
unauthorised withdrawals from his pension savings [cash on the ThinCats
platform] to both cover its annual charges and to provide a cash balance in
Mr E's [Cater Allen bank] account
Mr E
has held this SIPP since 2015 [10 December 2015]. When he opened the SIPP it was provided [available only via
Mr Bennis, in a contract with Greyfriars Asset Management], and
administered, by a company I will call G.
In 2018 G entered administration [23 October 2018] and [by 1 November
2018] Hartley took over as the operator and administrator of the SIPP. At that time Hartley wrote [29 October
2018] to affected clients informing them of the change and advising that
the change [NB]
would not have any impact on the investments, day to day administration, and
fees of the SIPP [which are detailed in the document Schedule of Fees, Single
Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP].
In May 2019
[mistake for 26 April
2019] Hartley wrote to Mr E advising him [via e-mail, including a link to
the relevant document (named by me within the next sentence) on the Hartley
Pensions website] of some changes to the key features of the SIPP. In so far as is relevant to this complaint [9 March
2020], the letter [e-mail]
and revised key features document [Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred
Retirement Account; p 6 (qv)] explained that invoices would no longer be automatically
issued before annual fees were taken (but could be provided on request). It also explained that ["If investments
within the SIPP are not income generating"] consumers [!] needed to hold at
least £2000 in cash or readily realisable assets in their linked bank account [not quite so, because:
"realisable assets" are on the ThinCats platform, not in the Cater
Allen bank account (which contains only cash, in consequence of some assets
having already been realised)].
And it said that fees would be reviewed regularly with 30 days'
notice of any changes being provided.
Over the
following months [1 October 2019 to 7 January 2020]
there was extensive correspondence between Mr E and Hartley about the administration
of the SIPP, and the fees that would be payable should he wish to withdraw
funds from the SIPP. I will deal [sparsely] with the
answers Hartley gave to those questions as part of my findings in this
decision.
Later in
2019 Hartley tried to take its annual administration fee ["Single Asset
... Fee" to 9 December 2020; £350 + VAT = £420] but Mr E
held insufficient funds [viz, £0.11] in his SIPP [Cater Allen] bank account to
pay the charge [concluded 15 January 2020]. So Hartley disinvested £418.89 [mistake for £419.89 (echoing
Mr du Casse)] to pay the administration fee, and a further £2000
[both sums from ThinCats account; 28 November 2019] in order that
Mr E met the requirement to maintain a balance of £2000 in his cash
account. Mr E says that he didn't
agree that transaction, and that Hartley should have sought his permission
before it was carried out.
Unhappy
with how he had been treated by Hartley, Mr E made a formal complaint [15 October
2019; augmented 26 November 2019, 28 November 2019,
29 November 2019]. In
response Hartley thought that it had acted in line with its terms and
conditions [Mr D'Arcy
made no such sweeping statement; 5 December 2019]. It apologised that it hadn't always responded
to Mr E's queries as quickly [sometimes not at all, as with my requests to Mr du Casse (26 July
2021) and reminder (18 August 2021)] as it would have
hoped. And, as a gesture of goodwill, it
offered [as "a
concession on this occasion" - ie, once only, which is out of order]
to allow Mr E to pay the fee of £175 + VAT for an annuity purchase that he
thought [knew for sure]
applied to his account. Mr E [in
the letter dated 7 January 2020 from me to Mr D'Arcy; which got neither
acknowledgement nor reply] didn't accept Hartley's response so [9 March
2020] brought his complaint to this Service.
One [three] of our
investigators has [have]
looked at Mr E's complaint [9 March 2020]. He [Mr du Casse, the second such
investigator; 25 March 2021; 13 July 2021] noted that
Hartley had apologised for the delays in responding to Mr E's queries and
thought that apology to be sufficient.
He thought that Hartley had acted in line with the SIPP terms and
conditions [viz, Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account,
p 6 (qv)] when
it liquidated some of Mr E's assets [(1) for which Mr D'Arcy apologised, see Cavalier
Withdrawal of Funds; (2) no liquidation of assets took place, only transfer of cash] to
pay its administration fee, and ensure he had the minimum balance in his cash
account. And he thought that the offer
Hartley had made, to waive some of the charges it thought were applicable to an
annuity purchase, was fair. So he didn't
think that the complaint should be upheld – or that Hartley needed to do
anything further. [This is a selective, and not
strictly accurate, representation of the two assessments attempted by
Mr du Casse.]
Mr E
didn't agree [30 March 2021; 26 July 2021] with that
assessment [nor with that
of Ms Milne (10 August 2021); 18 August 2021]. So, as the complaint [9 March 2020]
hasn't been resolved informally, it has been passed [27 September 2021]
to me, an ombudsman, to decide. This is
the last stage of our process.
I've
considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what's fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint [9 March 2020].
In deciding
this complaint [9 March 2020] I've taken into account the law, any
relevant regulatory rules and good industry practice at the time. I have also carefully considered the
submissions [10 May 2020; 16 December 2020; 30 March
2021; 26 July 2021; 18 August 2021] that have been
made by Mr E and by Hartley [obscured from my view].
Where the evidence is unclear, or there are conflicts, I have made my
decision based on the balance of probabilities.
In other words I have looked at what evidence we do have, and the
surrounding circumstances, to help me decide what I think is more likely to, or
should, have happened.
At the
outset I think it is useful to reflect on the role of this service. This service isn't intended to regulate or
punish businesses for their conduct – that is the role of the Financial Conduct
Authority. Instead this service looks to
resolve individual complaints between a consumer and a business. Should we decide that something has gone
wrong we would ask the business to put things right by placing the consumer, as
far as is possible, in the position they would have been if the problem hadn't
occurred.
I think
there are some over-arching matters that I need to consider first in this
complaint. Mr E has provided us [9 March
2020; 10 May 2020; 16 December 2020; 30 March
2021; 26 July 2021; 18 August 2021] with extensive
evidence of his dealings with Hartley [18 November 2018 to 12 August
2021] (and the previous SIPP administrator [viz, Mr Bennis, though he was not "the previous
... administrator"; 20 October 2015 to 9 December
2015]) and commentary about all aspects of his complaint. I think, at the start of this decision, I
have reasonably set out a summary [which is incomplete] of the key matters being complained
about. I have read, and considered,
everything that Mr E has sent to us.
And although I might not comment in this decision on all that evidence
it has formed part of my considerations.
When Hartley
took on the administration of the SIPP [by 1 November 2018], it did
not take any liability for any errors or omissions by the previous
administrator [Greyfriars Asset Management].
[This is to repeat
the mistake by Mr du Casse (25 March 2021) concerning
"prior liability".
Mr Reilly further expands the already questionable expansion by
Mr D'Arcy (5 December 2019) upon the declaration by
Mr McHugh (29 October 2018), which makes no mention of
"liability ... previous". This
sleight of hand by Mr Reilly is no proper premise for the next sentence.] So, in this decision, it would not be
appropriate for me to look at what Mr E was told at [prior to] the time [10 December
2015] the SIPP was originally opened.
[Sophistry. An attempt to dismiss the authority of
Mr Bennis, though he was not "the previous administrator", as my
only possible source of specific information prior to inception of my SIPP.] I accept that Hartley told Mr E [29 October
2018] that his terms and conditions remained unchanged [viz, there would be
no "impact on the ... fees of your SIPP"; Schedule of Fees, Single
Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP] as a result of the transfer. But here, where there is some dispute about
the specific meaning of some of the terms and conditions, I cannot hold Hartley
responsible for information he might previously have been given [not "might ... have been
given" but was given by Mr Bennis; 20 October 2015
to 9 December 2015] before it took over the
administration. Instead I think a fair
approach would be for me to consider whether Hartley's interpretation of the
terms and conditions (and any revisions that have been made) is reasonable [undeniably true (and marked *
for future reference)].
[This paragraph attacks a straw
man (of Mr Reilly's own making).
Whether intentionally so, or because of insufficient understanding, is
not clear. If intentional, it is a
devious (dishonest) debating tactic, long discredited. In any event, Mr Reilly blurs the scope
of two distinct documents: (1) Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred
Retirement Account; and (2) Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP. As a result, both this
paragraph and the next are worthless.]
In saying that I think I should first touch on those terms and
conditions [viz, "revised key features"; (1) above; effective as of 26 April
2019] and the changes that Hartley made in 2019. I don't think Mr E was ever given [nor have I ever claimed (hence,
classic straw man fallacy)] any assurance that the terms and conditions
he originally agreed to [viz, (2) above; 30 November 2015] would
apply for the entire time that he held the SIPP. It would be unreasonable to expect that sort
of assurance given the numerous changes that might apply in the markets. So I don't think it unreasonable for Hartley
to have varied [a small
minority of] the terms and conditions in its letter [e-mail, which included a link to
the relevant document - (1) above - on the Hartley Pensions website; 26 April
2019] to Mr E in 2019.
I am
satisfied that it is likely that letter [e-mail; 26 April 2019] was safely
received by Mr E [indeed
it was; see NOTE below], and so I think its contents should apply to his
relationship with Hartley [which
is not disputed (hence, classic straw man fallacy)]. And I also note those terms [viz,
"revised key features"; Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred
Retirement Account; p 6 (qv)] provide for Hartley to vary any fees applicable to the SIPP
by providing 30 days' notice. So
even if I were to find that Hartley was not applying the [original and very largely still
applicable] fee structure [Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP] as it should, it would be entirely reasonable for the firm to
alter the description of those fees so that the future implementation would match
its current understanding. So any
redress I might suggest in terms of the fee structure couldn't have any
significant forward impact. [This
paragraph continues with the straw man fallacy of the previous paragraph. As a result, both paragraphs are worthless.]
[NOTE This note concerns what I wrote in the letter
dated 7 January 2020 from me to Mr D'Arcy about "'we sent
out mailing to all Greyfriars Clientele informing them that the Key Features
Document had been revised. This was sent
to you in April 2019'. I have no copy of
any such correspondence."
I had looked for
hardcopy mail and found none.
Subsequently - because of my mention in that letter of accessing the
"document on line" on 26 April 2019 - I discovered on 23 February
2020 that I had received an e-mail (26 April 2019) on the
topic, from Mr McHugh, with a link to the document Key Features of the
Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account, on the Hartley Pensions website.
Separate from, and
in addition to, maintaining files of e-mail correspondence via gmail in folders
(by label), I keep a comprehensive record of correspondence - to and from -
about my SIPP in a Word file, SIPP.docx (111 pp;
29,812 words). I failed to
include in that record the e-mail dated 26 April 2019 from
Mr McHugh until 24 December 2021, when - at my first
opportunity - I began preparing my response to the "final decision" (6 December
2021). At that time (24 December
2021) I also downloaded a copy of Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred
Retirement Account, and gave that document far better attention than I had done
previously.]
Hartley
accepts [5 December 2019] that its communication with Mr E has
been, at times, less prompt [or
non-existent, as with my requests to Mr du Casse (26 July 2021)
and reminder (18 August 2021)] than it might have
expected. I can understand why that
would have been frustrating for Mr E.
But it seems to me that, at that time [18 November 2018 to 7 January
2020], his enquires [sic] were of a more general nature [not true; my enquiries were very
specific, including those of NOTE 1 below]. I haven't seen anything [including the letter dated 30 March
2021 from me to Mr du Casse? (which brings to mind the see-no-evil
monkey)] to make me think that the delayed responses from Hartley meant
that Mr E was prevented from implementing transactions that he intended –
or that any delays meant that he has lost out, either in terms of investment
returns or by being delayed in taking income from his pension savings [see NOTE 2 below].
[NOTE 1 By early-2019, investment
opportunities on ThinCats for individuals (retail investors) had fallen
dramatically: all-but dried up. Having
decided that I would prefer to expand my EvolutionSIPP options to include
Assetz Capital and / or RateSetter, it took from 18 November 2018
until 5 September 2019 to get a substantive answer from Hartley
Pensions that they would not allow this, as noted in the letter dated 9 March
2020 from me to the Financial Ombudsman Service, under the heading
Concerning Obstruction by Hartley Pensions.
Thus:
Enquiry
18 November 2018. Reminders
25 November 2018, 24 February 2019.
Response 28 February 2019 (indefinite).
Enquiry
(resumed) 15 July 2019. Reminders
29 July 2019, 5 August 2019, 27 August 2019. Responses 5 August 2019
(non-substantive), 27 August 2019 (non-substantive), 5 September
2019.
These are just
the first examples of poor response. In
subsequent enquiries, I had to send reminders regularly (though not always).
NOTE 2 In April 2020 I was expecting, shortly
thereafter, to set up a fixed term annuity (10yr), using some of the funds in
my SIPP (as an e-mail dated 2 June 2020, which I have retained,
will testify). This was expected to be
the first of more than one annuity. The
absence of satisfactory information from Hartley Pensions concerning costs, and
the lack of progress with my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service
(begun 9 March 2020), put my expectations on indefinite hold, where
they remain.
Here is an
extract from a section headed "Actions" in my records in SIPP.docx,
mentioned above.
On 9 March
2020 I began withdrawing cash from ThinCats to my Cater Allen account.
I visited the
Money Advice Service website on 9 March 2020 and 15 March 2020 and
used their calculator. This showed the
best rate for a fixed term annuity (10yr) would be obtained from Legal &
General. I also visited the Legal &
General website on these two dates and used their calculator (which had more
options and was good to use. I
discovered that it had retained detailed results of some previous searches of
mine). On 15 March 2020 I
registered with Legal & General, to be able to sign in and revisit the
results of searches.
On 15 March
2020 I also visited the Scottish Widows website and used their calculator
(which was very poor and limited); and I searched for other calculators,
without discovering anything worthwhile.
On 26 April
2020 I also visited the Canada Life website (they being a close second to Legal
& General for a fixed term annuity (10yr)), but was not impressed.
My best option is
Legal & General: initially, a fixed term annuity (10yr), paid annually in
arrear, 25% tax free cash upfront.
Subsequently, perhaps shorter terms, and possibly straight cash (depending
upon how and when funds are released from ThinCats).
The time to act
is when my complaint (9 March 2020) against Hartley Pensions to the
Financial Ombudsman Service has been addressed.
See also the
letter dated 30 March 2021 from me to Mr du Casse. "Hartley Pensions' position concerning
the one-off fee for annuity purchase with a third party is indefensible. Furthermore, it would guarantee financial
loss on my part."]
Turning now
to the fees that Hartley says would be payable for taking an annuity. Mr E says that he discussed [not discussed; see NOTE 1
below] the fees with the original SIPP administrator [viz, Mr Bennis, though he
was not "the original ... administrator"] and was told that a
single fee of £175 + VAT would apply if he used some of his pension savings to
purchase an annuity. He says [28 November
2019, 26 July 2021] that G, like Hartley, didn't offer
annuities so the cost he was quoted would have been inclusive of any fees to
transfer the funds to another provider.
Hartley says [according to Mr du Casse, in his e-mail dated 13 July
2021; see NOTE 2
below] that those fees would be additional to the quoted annuity cost.
[NOTE 1 The following is in the letter dated 9 March
2020 from me to the Financial Ombudsman Service, under the heading Annuity
Purchase.
In respect of
annuity purchase, the Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP,
is perfectly clear: "Annuity purchase: £175 {+ VAT}".
As a matter of
form, I enquired with Brian Bennis (21 October 2015) about annuity
purchase with a third party, and he confirmed the above figure.
The original Key
Features Document, a copy of which was posted to me by Greyfriars with a letter
dated 11 December 2015, states: Lifetime Annuity: "Under this option
... monies {are} transferred to an insurance company of your choice". The corresponding wording of the (revised)
Key Features Document [Key Features of the Greyfriars Preferred Retirement
Account] on the Hartley Pensions website is closely similar: "monies are
transferred to an insurance company of your choice".
Hartley Pensions,
however, maintain (25 November 2019, 26 November 2019,
28 November 2019) that the fee is £250 + VAT = £300; "We do not offer
annuities, so if you are wishing to purchase an annuity this would need to be
done as a cash transfer out to the annuity provider"; "we do not
offer annuities so the 'annuity purchase' fee cannot be applied".
NOTE 2 In the reply (26 July 2021) to
the e-mail dated 13 July 2021 from Mr du Casse to me, under
the heading Muddle and Confusion, I included the following.
And now for the
preposterous and outrageous nonsense in the matter you quote, apparently from a
communication you have received from Hartley Pensions.
Not in their
wildest evasions and exaggerations has anyone at Hartley Pensions proposed to
me a rip-off on the scale indicated in that quoted matter. So how you can claim "It is my
understanding that Hartley has already explained this to you", I do not
know. Please justify your claim.
Also, would you
please provide me with a copy in full of the original communication. I am interested to see not just the content
in full but also the date of the communication, and who was its perpetrator.
I got no response
to these requests. I included a reminder
(under the heading Reminder) with the letter dated 18 August 2021
from me to Mr du Casse. And in that
same letter, under the heading Annuity Purchase; Muddle and Confusion, I
explained exactly what I meant by "preposterous and outrageous nonsense in
the matter you quote". But
Mr du Casse continued to ignore my requests.]
I can
understand, given what he says he had been told by G [not "told by G" (Greyfriars Asset
Management), but confirmed by Mr Bennis, acting on their behalf; 21 October
2015], why Mr E was disappointed [not disappointed; in a state of justifiable contention]
when Hartley told him its interpretation of the fee structure. But I don't need to decide whether that
interpretation is reasonable [dereliction of duty by Mr Reilly; and / or astonishing volte-face concerning
his previously declared "fair approach", marked * above]. As I said earlier, Hartley has agreed [as "a concession on this
occasion" - ie, once only, which is out of order; 5 December
2019], as a gesture of goodwill, to only charge the fee that Mr E
thought was applicable for an annuity purchase.
And I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Mr E is now
aware [absolutely not; see
NOTE below] of the fee that Hartley would seek to charge for any future
annuity purchases. Even if I were to conclude
that wasn't a fair interpretation of the charges the terms and conditions [viz,
Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP] suggest Mr E
should pay, then I think Hartley has now given Mr E sufficient notice [precisely how?] of a
revision to the fee structure to reflect the fee it is saying applies.
[NOTE As noted in the letter dated 9 March
2020 from me to the Financial Ombudsman Service, under the heading Annuity
Purchase:
... the Schedule
of Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP, is perfectly clear:
"Annuity purchase: £175 {+ VAT}".
...
Hartley Pensions,
however, maintain (25 November 2019, 26 November 2019,
28 November 2019) that the fee is £250 + VAT = £300; "We do not offer
annuities, so if you are wishing to purchase an annuity this would need to be
done as a cash transfer out to the annuity provider"; "we do not
offer annuities so the 'annuity purchase' fee cannot be applied".
On the other
hand, as noted in the letter dated 18 August 2021 from me to
Mr du Casse:
The figure of
both of you ([Mr du Casse] 25 March 2021, [Ms Milne]
10 August 2021) - £175 + £250 = £425 + VAT (bamboozled by the
nonsense you quoted on 13 July 2021?) - for the annuity purchase fee, is
at odds with what I have been told (25 November 2019, 26 November
2019, 28 November 2019) by Hartley Pensions: £250 + VAT.
NOTE 1 Ludicrously, this last figure - £250 + VAT -
is referenced in the first paragraph of the quoted nonsense, only to be
followed by the utter confusion of its next two paragraphs.
NOTE 2 Your contradictory figure (25 March 2021)
- £175 + £250 = £425 + VAT - by no means follows unequivocally from the quoted
nonsense, which is open to liberal interpretation by a party intent on
misappropriation.
NOTE 3 Ms Milne (10 August 2021) attempts
to justify the same figure as yours (£425 + VAT) on the basis of the Schedule
of Fees, Single Asset Version of EvolutionSIPP.
But her £250 comes, absurdly, from the section headed Fees for
Additional Services (One Off Fees), whereas yours - via the quoted nonsense -
comes from the section headed Taking Benefits.
NOTE 4 Both of you apply the figure for the annuity
purchase fee (£175 + VAT) - which I have been told (25 November 2019,
26 November 2019, 28 November 2019) by Hartley Pensions cannot be
applied. This proscription is alluded to
in the first paragraph of the quoted nonsense.
This is a
remarkable exhibition of muddle and confusion.
Why so? At least in part because
of your failure to recognise the "preposterous and outrageous nonsense in
the matter you quote" for what it is.
Quite simply, the
cost of annuity purchase with a third party is £175 + VAT - on
each and every occasion, not as a one-off "concession on this
occasion" (letter dated 5 December 2019 from Gareth D'Arcy, Hartley
Pensions, to me).
I refer you very
specifically to the detail - all of it - under (both) the two headings Muddle
and Confusion in the letter dated 26 July 2021 from me to you. That detail begins with the observation
"This is critical."
And I reiterate
my request (26 July 2021, with a reminder at the outset of this letter) to
see a copy, in full, of the "communication you have received from Hartley
Pensions". I shall read with
interest the associated justification of your claim that "It is my
understanding that Hartley has already explained this to you".]
The
revisions to the terms and conditions [viz, Key Features of the Greyfriars
Preferred Retirement Account; p 6 (qv)] that were sent [via e-mail, as a link to that document on the Hartley
Pensions website] to Mr E in May 2019 [mistake for 26 April 2019] set out
that he needed to hold a minimum of £2000 either in cash, or readily realisable
assets. I assume that Hartley made that
stipulation so that it could easily collect any charges that were due. And the same letter [e-mail] told Mr E that invoices
wouldn't be routinely issued before charges were collected in the future. So I think that it was reasonable both for
Hartley to take its annual fees without issuing an invoice [for which Mr D'Arcy
apologised, see Cavalier Withdrawal of Funds], and to ensure that
Mr E met its requirements to hold a minimum of £2000 in his SIPP bank
account. So I don't think it did
anything wrong in the transaction it effected [à la steamroller; 28 November 2019] in
November 2019.
I appreciate
how disappointing [?]
my [hardly surprising,
ill-founded, muddled and confused] decision [concerning annuity purchase in particular]
will be for Mr E. It is clear that
he feels that Hartley has not managed in [sic] SIPP in the same spirit as the
previous provider. And that might well
be [undoubtedly is]
the case – but it isn't for me to dictate how a business should operate,
providing it is within the bounds of a reasonable commercial approach. I don't think that I should require Hartley
to do anything more than it already has offered. I think that any possible misunderstanding [on whose part?] about the
annuity fee structure [?]
is mitigated by Hartley's offer to progress Mr E's transfer at the rate he
understood was applicable. And I think that
Hartley acted within its terms and conditions [viz, Key Features of the
Greyfriars Preferred Retirement Account, p 6] when it ensured Mr E
held at least £2000 in his SIPP bank account.
For the
reasons given above [which
are ill-founded, muddled and confused in respect of annuity purchase in
particular], I don't uphold the complaint [9 March 2020] or
make any award against Hartley Pensions Limited.
Under the
rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I'm required to ask Mr E to
accept or reject my decision before 3 January 2022.
Paul Reilly
Ombudsman
NOTE
Not until Friday 23 September 2022 did I get a substantive reply to
this enquiry. The reply was from Joshua Kelly, Senior Assessor, The
Pensions Ombudsman, and included:
Having read through your papers it seems
that this matter has already been investigated by the Financial Ombudsman
Service (the FOS) which resulted
in a final decision being issued on your complaint on 6 December 2021.
For this reason, I have decided that we
should not investigate your complaint.
...
Text of e-mail to The Pensions
Ombudsman; enquiries@pensions-ombudsman.org.uk; 24 January 2022; Hartley
Pensions (SIPP) and Financial Ombudsman Service.
I have a SIPP (Single Asset Version
of EvolutionSIPP, or Low Cost EvolutionSIPP), established 10 December
2015. It was operated by Greyfriars
Asset Management, Leicester, until they entered administration on 23 October
2018. Hartley Pensions, Bristol, took
over the operation by 1 November 2018.
I have complained several times to
Hartley Pensions, and this culminated in a complaint about them to the
Financial Ombudsman Service on 9 March 2020 (ref PNX-3595986-T9V4).
That service declined to uphold my
complaint(s) with "reasons" - 23 March 2021 to 6 December
2021 - that are all over the place.
For example, one of my complaints
concerns the fee for annuity purchase.
The applicable documentation states:
() "Annuity purchase: £175";
() "An annuity: ... monies are transferred
to an insurance company of your choice".
But Hartley Pensions maintain
(incorrectly; to me) that the fee is £250 + VAT = £300. "We do not offer annuities, so if you
are wishing to purchase an annuity this would need to be done as a cash
transfer out to the annuity provider"; "we do not offer annuities so
the 'annuity purchase' fee cannot be applied".
NOTE
It is irrelevant that Hartley Pensions "do not offer
annuities". Their rôle is to transfer
the "monies ... to an insurance company of ... [my] choice" at the
stated cost of £175 + VAT = £210.
Subsequently, however, it appears
that - in what is clearly a preposterous and outrageous piece of nonsense -
Hartley Pensions have told the Financial Ombudsman Service something very
different from what they have told me (thereby suggesting that the cost of
annuity purchase would be considerably more than the above £300, which is
itself incorrect and excessive).
NOTE
My requests (26 July 2021, 18 August 2021) to the Financial
Ombudsman Service for sight of that communication have been ignored. That the ombudsman gives credence to it is
astonishing.
In brief, both Hartley Pensions and
the Financial Ombudsman Service have been obstructive and incompetent, leaving
me in limbo.
Can you help?
By way of further details, should
you require them, I have attached a copy of a letter dated 3 January 2022
from me to Paul Reilly, ombudsman. That
letter provides an accurate record of events in the processing of my
complaint(s) by the Financial Ombudsman Service, and it substantiates (several
times over) my charge of incompetence.
It also includes an appendix which contains my annotated transcript of
Mr Reilly's "Final decision" dated 6 December 2021. My annotations include exact dates and
highlighting (in yellow). The latter, in
part, draws attention to numerous mistakes and shortcomings by Mr Reilly -
whose decision is consequently ill-founded, muddled and confused.
NOTE
The letter from me to Mr Reilly also includes as much as I have
seen - quoted in an e-mail - of "what is clearly a preposterous and
outrageous piece of nonsense". It
is within the section headed E-Mail; 13 July 2021 (Confusion Gets Worse).
Because it is not available on line,
I have also attached a copy of the Schedule of Fees, Single Asset Version of
EvolutionSIPP (as signed by me on 30 November 2015).
Thank you ...
Concerning my degree of
satisfaction, I ticked the most unfavourable option; viz, very dissatisfied.
One of the boxes included: "If
you feel strongly about any of the above, please tell us more". I entered the following.
Please refer to the letter dated Monday
3 January 2022 from me to Paul Reilly.
I am told by Chris du Casse (10 January 2022) that this
"letter has been added to the complaint file". If you cannot find it then I can provide you
with [a] copy.
I answered "Yes" to
whether I would be willing to be contacted further. And heard no more.