Prudential has been ordered to compensate a client after it failed to provide him with the ongoing advice service he paid for.
The client, referred to as Mr M, had agreed to pay for Prudential's ongoing advice service (OAS) which included an annual review and an annual financial planning report as well as access to a dedicated adviser.
When Mr M complained about the review not being arranged, Prudential confirmed his annual review date was logged as 2 November 2016 but it also said its internal service standards allowed this review to be conducted within 60 days, either before or after, of the review date.
Mr M then took his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Ombudsman Paul Reilly said Mr M had an expectation that he would be contacted around a year after his investment had started to arrange his review appointment.
Mr Reilly said: "I don’t think that Prudential has provided the advertised ongoing advice service to Mr M.
"I don’t think this window of 120 days is referenced at all in the documentation. So I can understand Mr M’s disappointment when the review hadn’t been arranged in good time for the anniversary of his account commencing.
"When Mr M cancelled his OAS he was given the name of his adviser. This was different to the person who had originally provided the advice to Mr M.
He was later told that his original adviser had left Prudential.
"So it seems to me that Mr M didn’t have access to his dedicated adviser – it would not have been unreasonable to expect Prudential to advise Mr M of this change, and make arrangements for, at the very least, revised contact details to be provided.
"I think Mr M has grounds to feel let down by this part of the OAS too."
In 2016 Mr M met with Prudential to discuss releasing some funds from his pension scheme on an annual basis to help fund his and his wife’s ongoing expenditure.
Following that meeting Prudential agreed to facilitate the withdrawal of some of the fund in the form of an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum (UFPLS).
Mr M agreed to move the remainder of his pension to a Prudential Retirement Account and agreed to pay Prudential’s for OAS.
When, towards the first anniversary of this agreement, the review hadn’t been arranged Mr M contacted Prudential and asked for the service to be cancelled.
When Mr M complained to Prudential the provider didn’t accept his complaint but offered him an annual review free of charge in light of the payments he’d made of the ongoing advice charge (OAC) for almost a year.
Mr M didn’t accept that offer and brought his complaint to the Fos.
Mr M told the ombudsman he was happy with the advice he received in terms of his Retirement Account and the growth that account has achieved over the first year but he wasn’t happy with the ongoing advice.
Prudential's brochure stated in exchange for the ongoing advice charge, Mr M would have ongoing access to his dedicated adviser plus get a regular personal financial review where any changes required to keep his plan on track would be discussed.
The brochure promised Prudential would contact Mr M around the time of his review to arrange an appointment.
An annual financial planning report was also promised, which would show the value of products plus “useful market commentary”.
The brochure stated: "This means that even if you don't receive a financial review every year you will always have an annual picture of the progress of your investments.
"Your adviser will provide you with their contact details, so whether you have a simple question or a change in your circumstances you'd like to discuss, you can contact them whenever you need."
The review frequency that Mr M had agreed was annually – cheaper plans provided reviews every two or three years.
But Mr Reilly upheld Mr M's complaint and ruled that Prudential should refund the amount he paid for the service, which was £519.38.
emma.hughes@ft.com
