The Fos adjudicator stated in their decision that they did not feel Aegon had acted unfairly, because when the pension was set-up in 2013 and placed into the Lifestyle strategy, the terms and conditions of the strategy made clear it would be transferred into the retirement fund.
The adjudicator said: “Aegon were not giving financial advice about Mr H’s plan. They were unable to switch investments without his instructions. They had explained this and said he could move his investments to a number of alternative funds and invited him to get in touch with a financial adviser. Mr H confirmed he hadn't contacted a financial adviser.”
The adjudicator stated her view that Aegon’s role is “administrative in nature” and that they acted in line with the client’s instructions.
Aegon showed the Fos an email it had sent to Mr H, in response to his request to change his retirement date.
The email from Aegon stated: “If you choose not to match these dates, it could result in the mix of your investments not being the most appropriate at your selected retirement date.’
Case 2
The second complaint, also rejected by the Fos, relates to a client known as Mr P.
In his complaint, he stated that Aegon did not adequately communicate with him about the risks associated with the lifestyling strategy if gilt prices fell sharply.
The complainant stated that while Aegon published an article on its own website highlighting this, it was not actively or directly sent to clients of the Lifestyle strategy.
Aegon’s response to this was: “Aegon has said it doesn’t provide financial advice to Mr P and while it publishes information regarding the funds it offers on its website, it wouldn’t send this information directly to consumers as this could be seen as providing advice – something it isn’t able to do.
Aegon also said it encourages consumers to seek independent financial advice regarding their investments.
The client rejected this and stated they had requested Aegon to keep them updated with news regarding his retirement account.
The adjudicator rejected the complaint.
She was of the view that there was not a duty on Aegon to provide the website information to Mr P directly and it didn’t offer financial advice to him.
She agreed that had Aegon sent the article directly to him it could have been seen as providing advice, which it wasn’t allowed to do.
She went on to say that she regards the relationship between Mr P and Aegon as being “execution only”, with Aegon’s responsibility being to implement the requests of the client.
