Fidelity Fundsnetwork Pension · CAS-91594-R0Z0

CAS-91594-R0Z0

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr R

Scheme Fidelity FundsNetwork Pension (the Plan)

Respondents Fidelity International - Financial Administration Services Limited (Fidelity)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the main points.

On 31 December 2021, Fidelity received instructions to transfer Mr R’s funds from the Plan to Nucleus. Mr R held both uncrystallised and crystallised funds with Fidelity at the time of the transfer requests, in separate pension accounts. The crystallised funds were held in a FAD account. Fidelity received instructions to transfer the funds in both pension accounts.

On 4 January 2022, the next working day, Fidelity set up both transfer requests on the Origo system. Fidelity’s Transfer Team (the Transfer Team) arranged the sale of the uncrystallised pension funds following the completion of its checks. The funds were sold on the same day.

On the same day, Fidelity sent a letter to Mr R confirming the receipt of the requests to transfer his pension to Nucleus.

1 CAS-91594-R0Z0 On 6 January 2022, Fidelity’s Benefits Team (the Benefits Team) arranged the sale of the crystallised FAD funds after completing its checks.

On the same day, the Transfer Teams sent a Confirmation of Transaction (CoT) to Nucleus, showing sales within the uncrystallised account.

On 9 January 2022, the Transfer Team processed the payment request and approved the transfer of the uncrystallised pension funds.

On 10 January 2022, five working days after the transfer request, the FAD funds were sold after verification was completed by the Benefits Team.

On the same day, the Transfer Team processed the payment for the uncrystallised pension funds of £3,157.42 to Nucleus.

On 12 January 2022, the Benefits Team sent a CoT to Nucleus, showing sales within the FAD account.

On 20 January 2022, the Benefits Team processed and approved the payment request for the FAD pension transfer.

On 21 January 2022, fourteen working days after the transfer request, the Benefits Team made the FAD funds payment of £86,099.78 to Nucleus. The P45 form was also sent to Mr R.

On 1 February 2022, Mr R’s Independent Financial Adviser (the IFA) wrote to Fidelity to query whether there was a delay in the transfer of the FAD funds, as the sale date of these funds differed from the uncrystallised pension funds.

On 22 February 2022, Fidelity contacted the IFA by telephone to explain the processing of pension transfers. It confirmed that its standard process was to process the uncrystallised account first and then the crystallised FAD account, which was why the funds were sold on different dates. It further confirmed that it would not make any corrections as the correct process was followed. The IFA asked for a written confirmation.

On 4 April 2022, Fidelity responded to the IFA’s complaint. It did not uphold the complaint.

On 17 June 2022, the IFA responded to Fidelity. It was unhappy with Fidelity’s response and maintained that Mr R had been disadvantaged as a result of the different unit prices that had been used.

On 29 June 2022, Fidelity responded to the IFA. It maintained that its original decision of 4 April 2022 was fair and correct.

Following the complaint being referred to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO), Fidelity and Mr R have made further submissions which are summarised below.

2 CAS-91594-R0Z0

Summary of Mr R’s position:-

• The transfer of his crystallised FAD funds and uncrystallised funds with Fidelity was requested on the same day. However, there was a difference in 12 days between when both pension pots were transferred to Nucleus.

• The unit price on 10 January 2022, when the FAD funds were sold, was lower than the unit price on 4 January 2022, when the uncrystallised funds were sold, which affected the final amount that was paid to Nucleus. He would like Fidelity to make good the difference in the fund value.

• He does not understand why the transfer of the FAD funds was more complicated. Although he was in drawdown, he did have a flexible pension account.

• The delays by Fidelity have caused concern and distress, for which he would like to be compensated.

Summary of Fidelity’s position:-

• Two separate teams process crystallised and uncrystallised pension transfers at Fidelity, as each has different steps and processes requiring adherence. Both teams operate a nine-working day industry recognised Service Level Agreement (SLA) for each step of the process.

• Fidelity’s procedures always result in the crystallised pension being processed after the uncrystallised pension, as the former requires additional processes.

• It appreciates that Mr R would have been disappointed that the unit prices for his crystallised pension were lower compared to the prices obtained when his uncrystallised pension was sold. However, this resulted from market movement and not delays by Fidelity. The processing of the transfers is standardised, and it is not linked to market movement.

• Each stage for both pension transfers was completed within the industry recognised nine working days SLA timeframe and in accordance with Fidelity’s procedures.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

3 CAS-91594-R0Z0

Mr R did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr R submitted further comments in response to the Opinion. In summary he said:-

• He feels that the valuation of both of his plans – the uncrystallised funds and the FAD funds – should have the same valuation date.

• He does not understand why it would take Fidelity so long to review the records for the FAD funds, and it was at his cost as the FAD funds were subject to a downturn in values.

I have considered Mr L’s further comments, but they do not change the outcome, I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

4 CAS-91594-R0Z0

Therefore, I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint.

Dominic Harris Pensions Ombudsman 27 February 2026

5