IPM Personal Pension Scheme (PO-17357)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr G has complained that IPM failed:-

• To follow his instructions in respect of the 2013 Lease between IPM and AH.
• To act timeously in dealing with the breach of covenants, in the 2013 Lease in respect of ‘Signs’ and ‘Alterations’, by AH.
• To obtain Counsel’s Opinion on the basis advised by its legal adviser.

To put matters right Mr G wants IPM:-

• To apply at its own cost rectification of the 2013 Lease to reflect the terms of the Sale Agreement.
• To reimburse him Counsel’s fees of £2,860 and the SIPP legal fees debited from the pension fund.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld because:-

• While IPM’s failure to draw Mr G’s attention to the fact that the 2013 Lease did not include the exact terms he had instructed amounts to maladministration, there is no

evidence of financial loss arising from this to the SIPP.

• While IPM’s maladministration has caused Mr G some distress and inconvenience, it is not considered to be significant.
• There is no basis to order IPM to seek rectification of the 2013 Lease to reflect the terms of the sale agreement.
• IPM’s decision not to proceed further with legal proceedings against AH in respect of the signage and fixtures was properly made.
• There is no basis for IPM to reimburse Mr G Counsel’s fees and reimburse the SIPP legal fees that IPM has debited from it.