DRN-6266680

The complaint Mrs P is unhappy with the time taken for Quai Investment Services Limited (Quai) to pay a withdrawal claim from her self- invested personal pension (SIPP). What happened The investigator who considered this matter set out the background to the complaint in her assessment of the case. I’m broadly setting out the same background below, with some amendments for the purposes of this decision. Quai received a withdrawal instruction from Mrs P’s independent financial advisor (IFA) on 8 May 2025. The request was for £20,000 (gross). However, because of a previous error, a request for £20,000 (net) was needed. The previous withdrawal was paid by Parmenion - the investment platform provider - and £4,857 income tax paid. But Mrs P had the tax code “NT”. Because Mrs P couldn’t return the £4,857, a new withdrawal request could be made for £20,000.00. The new request would then be treated as an amendment of the first withdrawal, whereby Quai would then process a gross withdrawal of £20,000 to cover the tax. There was an internal communication within Quai on 19 May 2025 that requested the IFA be contacted and informed that a new instruction would need to be submitted based on the above. Quai received a new withdrawal instruction on 21 May 2025. But due to the time taken to pay the claim, Mrs P raised a formal complaint with Quai on 9 June 2025. On 18 June 2025, Quai requested the funds from Parmenion. The claim was then paid to Mrs P on 2 July 2025. Quai issued a final response letter on 21 August 2025 in which it accepted that there’d been delays and so offered to refund the £90 fee to facilitate the withdrawal instruction. Mrs P remained unhappy with the outcome reached, however, and referred her complaint to this service on 26 October 2025. The investigator requested further information from Quai on 3 February 2026, 17 February 2026, and 25 February 2026, but unfortunately the information wasn’t provided. The investigator therefore proceeded based on the information she had. Having considered the matter, our investigator thought that the complaint should be upheld, saying the following in summary: • In terms of the withdrawal process, when considering complaints about delays, our service must distinguish between an avoidable delay and an unavoidable delay - so what Quai had control over and what it didn’t.

-- 1 of 4 --

• Quai received the withdrawal instruction from the IFA on 8 May 2025, but the instruction was for £20,000 (gross) whereas, as set out above, the instruction needed to be for £20,000 (net). • Based on the available information, it didn’t seem to be the case that the IFA was told that the instruction needed to be for £20,000 (net) rather than gross until 19 May 2025. However, the need for the instruction to be made in such a way was due to the earlier error and was the decided approach to take to resolve that error. This was decided around 11 February 2025, but the IFA wasn’t told how the new instruction should be made i.e. as a net amount. • The IFA should have been made aware around 11 February 2025 and had they been, it was reasonable to assume that the instruction made on 8 May 2025 would have been correct. So, for the purpose of the hypothetical timeline, a valid withdrawal instruction should have been received on 8 May 2025. • Quai should reasonably have then requested the funds from Parmenion 2-3 business days from the receipt of the valid withdrawal instruction, which would have meant by 13 May 2025. The time taken for Parmenion to send the funds wasn’t something which Quai had control over and it also wasn’t possible to confirm the exact date on which the funds were received by Quai. • But there were 10 business days from the date at which the funds were requested from Parmenion to the date at which the claim was paid - which was reasonable for such actions. • Therefore, the same time frame should be used for the hypothetical timeline, meaning that the claim should have been paid to Mrs P on 28 May 2025. • Because the claim was actually paid on 2 July 2025, there’d been a five week delay. • Where a business had caused a delay such as this, and where a consumer had been deprived of income for a period of time as a result, this service took the approach that the business should pay 8% pa simple interest for the period of deprivation. • Therefore, Quai should calculate 8% pa simple interest on the claim amount from 28 May 2025 to 2 July 2025 as this would be the period of deprivation. The calculated interest should then be paid to Mrs P. • Mrs P had said that, because of the delays, she’d lost out financially because of a change in exchange rates. It would fair for Quai to also take this into account to ensure Mrs P was put back in the position she’d be in – or as closely as possible - had the claim been made without delay. • However, this should be on the condition that Mrs P converted the claim payment to euros within a reasonable period from receipt of the claim payment. Mrs P should evidence the conversion, and then Quai could compare what the conversion value would have been, had the money been converted to Euros five weeks previously. Should there be a loss, then Quai should pay that loss to Mrs P. • Mistakes such as this could also cause distress and inconvenience to consumers. Quai had offered to refund the £90 fee to facilitate the withdrawal instruction, but because the instruction was carried out - albeit delayed – the fee wouldn’t need to be refunded.

-- 2 of 4 --

• Instead, Quai should pay Mrs P £350 in respect of the distress and inconvenience the delay caused. • If Quai had already refunded the £90 fee, it could offset this and would therefore need to pay £260 compensation instead. • Our guidance said that an award of £350 would be fair when a business had caused considerable distress, upset and worry, and/or significant inconvenience and disruption that needed a lot of extra effort to sort out. • In this instance, the service provided wasn’t what should have been expected. Quai caused a five week delay to the withdrawal claim which no doubt caused Mrs P great stress and disappointment. Mrs P informed our service that she was low on money and so, because of the delays, had to borrow money from her partner. Therefore, an award of £350 was fair and justified in the circumstances. Mrs P accepted the investigator’s recommendation, but Quai didn’t respond. As agreement hasn’t been reached on the matter, it’s been referred to me for review. At my request, Mrs P has provided evidence that she converted the payment she received on 2 July 2025 into euros on the same day. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As with the investigator, my understanding of what’s happened here is that, due to a prior mistake, Quai should have informed Mrs P’s IFA that the payment request needed to be for £20,000 net. And had this been resolved properly, it would have been submitted in this way. Quai hasn’t objected to this appraisal of events, nor responded to the investigator’s requests for further information. Nor has it responded to the investigator’s assessment and redress recommendation. And so on the basis of the available evidence, I agree that, as the request was submitted on 8 May 2025, this should then have been acted upon, and the funds requested form the investment manager, within three working days. It then took ten working days for the funds to be received from the investment manager and payment to be made. Therefore, the timeline as set out by the investigator, in that payment ought to have been made on 28 May 2025, seems reasonable. Putting things right Mrs P was without her payment from 28 May 2025 to 2 July 2025. There would also have been a change in exchange rates from pounds to euros – and as evidenced by Mrs P, she converted the payment into euros when she received it on 2 July 2025. And so, as with the investigator, Quai Investment Services Limited should apply interest at the rate of 8% simple pa to the net value, in euros, that Mrs P would have received on 28 May 2025 up until she received her payment on 2 July 2025. And then, for the consequential loss arising from that deprivation, interest at the same rate should be applied to that calculated interest amount in euros from 2 July 2025 to the date of settlement. And for the same reasons as set out by the investigator, Quai Investment Services Limited should also pay Mrs P £350 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision My final decision is that I uphold the complaint and direct Quai Investment Services Limited to undertake the above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Philip Miller Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --