No judicial review for FOS defined benefit transfer caseGo back
The High Court has rejected an application for permission for judicial review in a number of FOS complaints upheld against the adviser who advised on a defined benefit pension transfer. The adviser had advised on the transfer but not the subsequent investments made after the transfer. The adviser was led to believe that UCIS investments would not be made with the transferred funds but in fact UCIS investments were made. The FOS found that the adviser had given unsuitable pension transfer advice partly on the basis that it should have asked more questions about the ultimate investments and it was not enough to have provided for a general spread of investment type. Permission for judicial review was rejected on the basis that there was nothing unlawful in the FOS decisions including the fact that the adviser was held responsible for 100% of the losses despite the involvement of the separate adviser that advised on the investments following the transfer.
For the full story from RPC, please visit the link below: