The Pensions Ombudsman has not upheld a policyholder's complaint against the Prudential.
Mr L complained that the Prudential incorrectly transferred £15,168.28 from three funds in a personal pension into a self invested personal pension (Sipp) with Hargreaves Lansdown, rather than taking the whole amount from the cash fund in the personal pension, as he had intended.
In his determination, Anthony Arter, the Pensions Ombudsman, said: "Where the sending scheme has not specified from which funds the monies should be divested, it is standard practice, and reasonable, to divest equally across the funds, to maintain the same investment allocation and the same level of risk."
Mr L held benefits in the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the USS) and in a personal pension with the Prudential.
In or around June 2014, Mr L decided to transfer benefits of £15,168.28 from the USS to the personal pension.
Prudential stated Mr L spoke with its representative on 11 June 2014, and Mr L confirmed he wished to invest this sum in the cash fund.
On 22 June 2014, Prudential received a signed application form from Mr L. The form included a section for Mr L to specify which fund he wished to invest in. Mr L stated “Prudential Cash Fund” and 100%.
On 13 August 2014, Mr L completed an Hargreaves Lansdown transfer form to transfer benefits under the personal pension to the Sipp.
In the box marked “Type of scheme e.g. Stakeholder/FSAVC”, Mr L wrote “PRUDENTIAL CASH”. He also confirmed that the amount to be transferred was £15,168.28.
The Pensions Ombudsman, said: " I appreciate Mr L feels that his instruction of 13 August 2014 was clear.
"He says that, at the time of the transfer, the personal pension was invested in three funds, one of which was Prudential Cash.
Therefore, his instruction that the funds being transferred to HL should come from the Prudential Cash fund only could not be open to misinterpretation.
"However, I do not agree for two reasons. Firstly, while Mr L wrote ‘Prudential Cash’ on the transfer form, the field specifically requested a type of pension scheme, rather than a fund, giving the examples of a Stakeholder and FSAVC.
I therefore consider that it was reasonable for Prudential to assume that Mr L was referring to the personal pension, rather than a specific fund within the Personal Pension.
" Secondly, Prudential has explained that in any case, the transfer form was overridden by HL’s online instruction. There is nothing in the online instruction that specifies from which funds the money being transferred should be taken."
