ARTICLE
20 November 2023

Pensions Ombudsman's First Decision On Overseas Investment "Amber Flag" Under Transfer Regulations

NR
Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong

Contributor

Norton Rose Fulbright provides a full scope of legal services to the world’s preeminent corporations and financial institutions. The global law firm has more than 3,000 lawyers advising clients across more than 50 locations worldwide, including London, Houston, New York, Toronto, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney and Johannesburg, covering Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa and the Middle East. With its global business principles of quality, unity and integrity, Norton Rose Fulbright is recognized for its client service in key industries, including financial institutions; energy, infrastructure and resources; technology; transport; life sciences and healthcare; and consumer markets.

The PO has published its first determination relating to an amber flag relating to overseas investments under the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfer)...
United Kingdom Employment and HR

The PO has published its first determination relating to an amber flag relating to overseas investments under the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfer) Regulations 2021. The member's complaint was dismissed.

An amber flag is raised under the Regulations where a member requests a transfer to a scheme including overseas investments. The Regulations then require the member to be referred for guidance from MoneyHelper before the transfer takes place. Schemes have taken a varied approach to this requirement, with some trustees interpreting the requirement strictly and applying to any overseas investment, as in this case.

The member complained that his transfer had been unnecessarily delayed as a result of the presence of the amber flag and the referral of the member's request to MoneyHelper for guidance. The member's financial adviser did not agree with the trustees' referral.

The PO decided that the trustees' literal interpretation of the Regulations was "not unreasonable" and this did not amount to maladministration. The presence or absence of overseas investments in the receiving scheme was a decision for the transferring trustees to make. Thus, as the trustees had acted reasonably, there was no action by the trustee that had caused an unreasonable delay to the transfer.

However, although it was found that "the wording of the Regulations and the intended practical application may not be aligned", the PO stopped short of suggesting that a MoneyHelper appointment would be appropriate in all similar cases.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More