Namulas SIPP (PO-28652)
I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint and no further action is required by Namulas.
Mr S complains that:-
Namulas has been unable to confirm which Trust Deed and Rules (the Rules) are in force for the SIPP.
Namulas has unilaterally changed the Rules. In particular, Mr S can no longer borrow against the SIPP or use an overdraft facility. In addition, Namulas is now able to force a sale of the SIPP’s asset, in order to pay its own fees.
The SIPP asset has lost value. In particular, Namulas has tried to force a sale below market value.
The SIPP fees are unreasonable. In particular, the SIPP asset was mis-sold to Mr S, as he was not made aware of the fees that would be applicable before he made the investment. He has also not been receiving a pension from the SIPP as Namulas has ceased collecting rent from the tenant.
Namulas failed to carry out sufficient due diligence on the suitability of the SIPP when it commenced, and when the property was purchased in 2005.
- Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (CAS-43767-M3K0)Complainant: Mr YRespondent: Scottish Prison Service
The Cabinet OfficeOutcome: Not upheldComplaint Topic: Interpretation of scheme rules/policy termsRef: CAS-43767-M3K0Date:
- Local Government Pension Scheme (PO-14629)Complainant: Mr NRespondent: City of Bradford Metropolitan District CouncilOutcome: Partly upheldComplaint Topic: Interpretation of scheme rules/policy termsRef: PO-14629Date: