From the blog: Last week the Pensions Ombudsman said the agency would begin taking a more proactive approach to interventions, especially in appeals that can have broader implications for the pensions industry – a departure from its previously more placatory tone.

In the statement, the ombudsman said it would look to be more directly involved in cases that could affect the pensions sector as a whole. 

What catalysed the ombudsman into action was the Hughes v Royal London appeal earlier this year.

In the statement, the ombudsman said it would look to be more directly involved in cases that could affect the pensions sector as a whole.

What catalysed the ombudsman into action was the Hughes v Royal London appeal earlier this year, in which Donna-Marie Hughes had appealed against the ombudsman’s ruling to dismiss her complaint against Royal London.

The provider had blocked her request to transfer her pension into a scheme which Royal London said seemed likely to be a scam.

The insurer itself, unsurprisingly, welcomed the ombudsman’s tougher stance, saying it would undoubtedly “strengthen consumer protection”.

Others came out in support of the ombudsman’s bulking up: law firm Burges Salmon tweeted: “@PensionsOmbudsman decision serves as a helpful reminder of the level of due diligence expected of SIPP operators”.

The agency’s new tack is a departure from its previously more placatory tone.

Following the High Court ruling, Anthony Arter, the Pensions Ombudsman, released a restrained statement saying he welcomed the publication of the ruling, as it would bring “clarity” to people with complaints similar to Ms Hughes’s.

It seems the ombudsman now wishes to bring some clarity of its own, however.

This putting-the-foot-down approach, both by the High Court and the ombudsman, inevitably highlights the ongoing struggle of the pensions industry to cope with the introduction of freedom and choice.

Topics