The way Rowanmoor Pensions administered a Ssas has been described as “inadequate” by the Pensions Ombudsman.
Rowanmoor has been told to pay a divorcee, referred to as Mrs T, £500 for “the significant distress and inconvenience” caused to her by its failure to ensure the only remaining asset in her ex-husband’s pension, a Spanish property, was insured.
Mrs T also complained that Rowanmoor failed to act in a timely manner on the pension sharing order which followed her divorce from Mr T.
She also believed that Rowanmoor failed to remit rental income which Mr T had received into the pension fund.
The administration of the scheme was, in my opinion inadequate.Anthony ArterHowever the ombudsman rejected both of these complaints only supporting her claim that it should have made sure the property contained in the Ssas her husband was told to hand over was insured.
The pension was set up as part of a small self-administered scheme (Ssas) in 2001 with three members, including Mrs T’s former husband and containing four properties.
In 2003, two of these properties were sold, with another being sold a few years later.
Two members of the scheme subsequently transferred out, leaving Mrs T’s ex-husband as the sole member and in ownership of the single Spanish property which remained.
In a net assets statement dated 5 April 2009, the property within the scheme was valued at £170,653.
On 14 June 2010, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr T’s financial adviser and requested a copy of the current property insurance schedules for the properties owned by the scheme but it did not receive this document.
On 7 December 2011, a pension sharing order was issued which entitled Mrs T to her ex-husband’s pension rights under the scheme.
After much correspondence on 14 March 2014, Mrs T’s representative informed Rowanmoor that Mrs T had obtained details of solicitors in Spain in connection with re-registering the property.
It was also mentioned that there was some damage to the property so Mrs T’s representative requested that Rowanmoor provide a copy of its insurance certificate for the property.
On 8 November 2014, Rowanmoor said that Mr T had over the years arranged insurance for the property but they had never been provided with a copy of the insurance certificate.
In a final decision, Pensions Ombudsman Anthony Arter said: I consider that Rowanmoor ought to have followed up its letter in 2010 given the risk of the property remaining uninsured.
“The administration of the scheme was, in my opinion inadequate. If Rowanmoor had ensured that insurance cover was in place Mrs T would not have been caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience by the property remaining vandalised and uninsured during the period prior to Rowanmoor’s subsequent intervention.
“I have taken into account the steps that were eventually taken by Rowanmoor to repair and secure the property, however, Rowanmoor should be held to account for the considerable distress and inconvenience suffered by Mrs T.”
emma.hughes@ft.com
