Aviva Self Invested Personal Pension Plan And Aviva Commercial · CAS-51876-F7Y0

CAS-51876-F7Y0

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr T

Scheme The Aviva Self Invested Personal Pension Plan (the Plan) and the Aviva Commercial Property Investment provided by Curtis Banks (the Sub-Plan)

Respondent Suffolk Life Annuities trading as Curtis Banks (CB)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-51876-F7Y0

2 CAS-51876-F7Y0

Mr T subsequently followed up with CB:-

17.1. By email and telephone on 25 November 2019, leading to CB asking SSE to escalate the reconnection of the Supply.

17.2. By email on 3 December 2019, by telephone on 4 December 2019 and by telephone on 5 December 2019, seeking an update. He did not receive any reply.

On 6 December 2019, SSE contacted CB to inform it that a credit check was required to open an account for the Supply. Once the check had been done, it would update CB.

On 9 December 2019, CB contacted SSE to check on progress and sent an update to Mr T.

On 11 December 2019, Mr T asked CB to instruct SSE to add his name to the SSE account so that he could deal with the reconnection himself. CB complied with his request.

On 17 December 2019, Mr T complained to SSE that he was losing around £8,000 per month because the Supply had not been reconnected.

On 18 December 2019, Mr T sought an update from CB, without response.

On 19 December 2019, Mr T informed CB that SSE had been trying to contact it. CB telephoned SSE which said it was ready to arrange reconnection of the Supply. CB asked SSE to arrange the reconnection directly with Mr T, but SSE said it would require a letter of authority to do so, from CB. CB noted that SSE had already been instructed, on 11 December 2019, to add Mr T to the account, but provided the letter of authority nevertheless.

On 20 December 2019, SSE provided CB with account details for payment of the reconnection fee of £94.80. SSE did not receive payment and contacted CB again by telephone on 23 December 2019, initially unsuccessfully by telephone, then by email. It asked CB to respond by the end of the day, as the person dealing with Mr T’s case would be on leave thereafter, but CB did not do so.

CB contacted SSE on 24 December 2019 asking for an invoice for the reconnection charge. SSE emailed an invoice to CB on 30 December 2019 and said it would watch for receipt of payment so that immediate action could be taken to reconnect the Supply. SSE had not received payment for the reconnection fee by 2 January 2020,

3 CAS-51876-F7Y0 so it contacted CB again. On 3 January 2020, CB informed SSE that payment had been made by BACS and should be received by 6 January 2020.

SSE received the payment for the reconnection fee on 6 January 2020 and it was agreed that Mr T would attend the reconnection appointment. Mr T expressed his dissatisfaction that CB had not acted with due urgency regarding the reconnection of the Supply and that both he and SSE struggled to get CB to return their telephone calls. He said that any action taken by CB always seemed to be prompted by contact from him. He asked for, and received, a log of all CB’s previous contacts with SSE regarding the Supply.

On 9 January 2020, Mr T contacted both CB and SSE to obtain an update. He also noted, from the log of contacts he received from CB, that CB had emailed the IP in November 2018 regarding responsibility for the Supply, and asked how CB had followed up on its message.

On 10 January 2020, CB emailed Mr T to respond to some of his questions. CB was of the view that it had kept in constant contact with SSE regarding reconnection of the Supply but it had not mentioned Mr T’s alleged losses to SSE as it feared this would slow down the reconnection.

On 13 January 2020, Mr T contacted SSE directly for an update on the reconnection of the Supply. Then, on 14 January 2020, he emailed CB to draw attention to its failure to respond to many contacts from him, to ask for an explanation of why it initially allowed the Supply to be disconnected and to ask why his name had not yet been added to the account for the Supply. As he received no response, he emailed again on 16 January 2020 and made a follow up telephone call which failed as the number appeared to him to have been disabled. He emailed CB again on 17 January 2020 chasing a response to his messages and informing CB that he intended to instal a temporary electricity generator at the Property.

Mr T emailed CB again on 28 January 2020, not having received any response to his message of 13 January 2020 or the previous messages to which it referred. Mr T also said that SSE had not heard from CB. CB responded with a short reply outlining when Mr T could bring his complaint to TPO. Mr T queried the complaint timing but heard nothing further from CB. On 4 February 2020, Mr T emailed CB again as he had not received a response. Then, on 12 February 2020, Mr T confirmed to CB that he had received a standard complaint acknowledgement letter from it.

On 13 February 2020, CB emailed Mr T to say the information about complaining to TPO was in its letter of 9 December 2019. CB was pleased that the Supply had been restored last month.

On 14 February 2020, Heads of Terms for sale of the Property were drawn up.

On 18 February 2020, in Mr T’s emailed response to CB, he said the Supply was reconnected on 7 February 2020, not “last month” as it had said. CB had not responded regarding why he had not been added to the SSE account and did not 4 CAS-51876-F7Y0 respond to him when he needed to decide if he should instal a temporary electricity generator. He asked for Insurance details for the Property as it had been hit by a car.

Mr T’s position

CB’s position

Adjudicator’s Opinion

5 CAS-51876-F7Y0

CB accepted the Adjudicator’s Opinion, but Mr T did not, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr T provided his further and extensive comments which are summarised in paragraphs 38 to 40 below.

Loss of income

Mr T asserts that the Property was essentially disinvested when it became unusable and that CB acknowledged that “the building being inaccessible created the loss of potential tenants.” As soon as the Property was accessible, there were multiple offers to buy and the deal was completed immediately.

Loss of faith

Mr T had, in the past, experienced many problems with CB and dealing with CB’s continuous and repeated problems was making him ill. Mr T listed other examples of his poor experience with CB over previous years. As he had a complete loss of faith in CB, he disagreed with the Adjudicator’s view that he was not forced to transfer to Mattioli Woods.

6 CAS-51876-F7Y0 Distress / Inconvenience

Mr T is of the view that the Adjudicator misread the level of distress and anger the disconnection of the Supply has caused him. The duration of the stress was many months during which he was required to commit hundreds of hours of effort, calls and emails to resolve it. He also had to make countless journeys to the Property to meet tradesmen and various other people.

I have considered Mr T’s comments, but they do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and address Mr T’s comments in paragraphs 42 to 52 below.

Ombudsman’s decision Loss of income

“I do understand the concern and the frustration that having no power has caused, this will have affected the building security systems, including the shutters, which in turn made the building inaccessible and created the loss of potential tenants.”

Loss of faith

7 CAS-51876-F7Y0

Distress and inconvenience

“Your complaint, about [the Sub-Plan], is that [CB] caused/provided delays, incorrect information and poor customer service in relation to the electric supply at a property held within [the Sub-Plan]. This has caused various losses, including but not limited to loss of rental income, fees and charges and distress and inconvenience.”

“I already have an open complaint with Suffolk Life for events but a few months ago which has been acknowledged but not been finalised yet despite being months old and its more of the same "diabolical service" and I have a complete lack of faith in all and everything that Suffolk Life do and Im (sic) simply fed up with horrendous levels of service.”

8 CAS-51876-F7Y0

Summary of Ombudsman’s decision

Therefore, I partly uphold Mr T’s complaint.

Directions

Camilla Barry

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 6 January 2025

9