WPS Advisory Ltd · DRN-6068993

The complaint Mr C has complained to WPS Advisory Ltd (‘WPS’) about advice he received to take his remaining tax free cash (‘TFC’) allowance in 2024. He says the advice was not in his best interest as he didn’t need the excess funds. He believes he lost out on investment growth on the excess funds. Mr C is also unhappy with the service he received while taking his TFC and the fees WPS charged for the advice. What happened The background to the complaint was clearly set out in the Investigator’s opinion letter, dated 12 December 2025. So I don’t intend to repeat it in full here. Instead I’ve summarised what I consider key to my decision. Mr C spoke with WPS after receiving his annual review letter. During this call WPS told Mr C that he was entitled to an annual review meeting, where he might like to discuss possible changes to the pension rules. Mr C booked a meeting, which took place over the phone on 7 March 2024. Following this call, WPS sent its advice letter to Mr C recommending that he fully crystalise funds remaining in his self-invested personal pension (‘SIPP’) and take his remaining TFC entitlement. WPS said it was recommending this course of action to avoid the risk of a possible Lifetime Allowance (‘LTA’) tax charge, should the Labour Party win a general election and amend the existing LTA rules. Mr C accepted the advice and returned the relevant forms on 14 March 2024. Mr C chased WPS several times before the TFC was paid. He was concerned because the adviser had told him he needed to take the TFC in the 2023/24 tax year. Following the transfer Mr C raised concerns about the service, the withdrawal charge and the £750 advice fee. WPS offered to waive one monthly advice fee (£275). Although this was accepted at the time, Mr C wasn’t referred to this Service. In June 2024 Mr C appointed a new financial adviser. In November 2024, Mr C complained that WPS wasn’t acting in his best interest when it provided him with advice to crystallise his pension in full and that he believed the purpose of the advice was to charge him an additional fee. WPS reviewed the complaint but didn’t think its advice had been unsuitable or that it had given incorrect information about the historic LTA rules. WPS said it wasn’t responsible for Mr C having not invested funds after he received them; it had suggested he put any surplus TFC in an ISA and General Investment Account (GIA), but Mr C decided to leave the funds in savings. WPS acknowledged the duplicate withdrawal charges, and the difficulties Mr C experienced contacting WPS throughout the process. But it felt the £275 offered was fair to resolve this.

-- 1 of 6 --

Mr C referred the complaint to this Service where it was considered by one of our Investigators. The Investigator thought the advice provided to Mr C had been unsuitable; they didn’t think it was safe to advise Mr C to make an irreversible decision based on something that may not happen. And the Investigator didn’t think WPS had clearly presented what Mr C should do with the surplus TFC. So they thought it was fair for WPS to compensate Mr C for this. However, they thought this should be capped at the point Mr C appointed a new financial adviser. In terms of the £750 advice fee Mr C had paid, the Investigator didn’t think this should have been charged and they also recommended WPS paid Mr C £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenient the matter had caused him. And the Investigator thought the £275 monthly adviser fee WPS had offered to refund for the service Mr C received, while taking his TFC, was fair. Mr C accepted the Investigator’s opinion. WPS didn’t accept the Investigator’s findings. In summary it said: • Mr C confirmed his original intention was to extract all of his tax-free cash over a relatively short timeframe. Its advice simply brought forward an outcome that would have occurred within 3-4 years in any event, with the added benefit of protecting against potential LTA charges. • The advice did not dictate Mr C's decision - it placed him in a position to make an informed choice. • The finding that WPS should have automatically bundled investment advice with LTA planning contradicts both regulatory requirements and Mr C's choices. • The 27 February call specifically referenced a review discussion regarding "possible changes to pension legislation," signaling work beyond ongoing service. The fee was discussed during the 7 March call before any advice was provided. Mr C raised no objection at that time. • WPS acknowledged service issues and offered £275 (one month's fee waiver), which Mr C accepted. The recommendation of an additional £300 appears to double- compensate for matters already addressed, particularly as it relates to the suitability of advice (which WPS maintains was appropriate) rather than service delivery. The complaint has been passed to me to reach a final decision. 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. I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice, and what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. This includes the Principles for Business (‘PRIN’) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’). And where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory, I reach my conclusions on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I think is more likely than not to have happened based on the available evidence and the wider surrounding circumstances. Having reviewed all the available information, I’m in agreement with the Investigator that the complaint should be upheld and for mostly the same reasons. I’ll explain why.

-- 2 of 6 --

Suitability of the advice WPS’s advice was provided on the assumption the Labour party would win the next general election and would make changes to the LTA rules. At the point the advice was given to Mr C, the next general election hadn’t even been announced; it was officially announced in May 2024, more than two months after Mr C first spoke to WPS about potential changes to the LTA rules. And like our Investigator explained, I don’t think the LTA rules changing was something that Mr C was worried about until he spoke to WPS after he had received his 2024 annual review letter. While I don’t think it was necessarily unreasonable for WPS to have mentioned the possibility of LTA changes should the Labour government win an election, it went further than this. During the call in March 2024, WPS told Mr C that he’d be facing a tax bill of £55,000. And he was also told that if he delayed taking action until more was known, there would be thousands and thousands of people taking action and as the providers only employ a certain number of people, not everyone will be able to do what they want. WPS also said there was a chance transitional rules would be introduced that could limit his ability to take action. This was all speculative as WPS didn’t know for sure what would happen. But despite this, it advised Mr C to take action on the chance something may happen at some point in the future. Mr C was relying on the information and advice being provided to him by WPS and I think the advice to crystallise his full pension fund and take his remaining TFC was unsuitable. And as a result of the advice, Mr C took irreversible unnecessary action that left his surplus TFC in his savings account. I do appreciate that during the call in March 2024, the adviser suggested Mr C drip feed surplus funds into an ISA but this wasn’t an ideal solution. While any interest on the funds in the ISA would be tax free, Mr C’s surplus funds were way in excess of the ISA annual allowance. It would therefore have taken several years to drip feed funds into an ISA. So it’s not unreasonable that Mr C left the surplus funds in his savings accounts. I therefore think it’s fair for WPS to compensate Mr C for any loss in investment growth that he may have suffered as a result of its unsuitable advice to take all his TFC in 2024. Mr C instructed a new financial adviser in June 2024 so like our Investigator, I think it’s fair that WPS’s responsibility for any loss is capped at that point. I’ve set out further below what I think WPS needs to do to put matters right. Fees Mr C is unhappy with the additional £750 fee he had to pay for advice. WPS said the call on 27 February referenced a review discussion regarding "possible changes to pension legislation". WPS believes this signalled work beyond what Mr C was already paying for ongoing servicing. I’ve listened to this call but I don’t think Mr C was really given an indication that an additional fee would be payable. He was told at the start of the call that he was entitled to a free annual review meeting. Later in the call the adviser went to say that “it’s likely that Labour are going to come back into power and they’ve already highlighted that there are going to be some rule changes to pensions…”.The adviser then told Mr C that “it’s part and parcel of the service and the FCA do appreciate it when we reach out to clients to actually have a conversation”. Mr C agreed to the meeting and was told to book it online. There was no mention or indication of an additional cost being payable for this advice. The fee was mentioned towards the end of the call with Mr C on 7 March 2024, when the adviser had already talked Mr C through his advice. It’s clear that during this call Mr C was surprised at the additional cost.

-- 3 of 6 --

And he raised this again the following week when his usual adviser called him. During this call he said he paid over £3000 a year for ongoing advice and the only new advice he’d had in the last three or four years was for the LTA advice (for which he’d been charged an additional £750). During this call he also mentioned that he was unsure why everything had been so rushed and that because if this, he’d paid his SIPP provider a fee for his usual TFC withdrawal and then had to pay again to take his remaining TFC entitlement. Mr C’s usual adviser went away to consider Mr C’s concerns and ultimately came back with an offer to waive one month’s ongoing service fee for Mr C (£275). However, the adviser explained WPS was not prepared to waive the £750 advice fee. Mr C pushed back on this but wasn’t given referral rights to this Service and ultimately reluctantly accepted the offer. The email on file suggest that Mr C’s adviser arranged for this to be waived and I’ve not been given any information to the contrary. I’ve considered this offer but I don’t think it goes far enough to put things right. While the £275 covers the additional fee Mr C had to pay his SIPP provider for making a further withdrawal, WPS made it clear that this wasn’t being refunded to cover any part of the advice fee as it confirmed that wasn’t being waived. However, I don’t think Mr C required advice when there wasn’t, at that time, any certainty that the LTA rules would be changing, and I should add they still haven’t been changed. So I think WPS should also refund the £750 advice fee Mr C paid. Distress and inconvenience The advice letter, dated 13 March 2024, that Mr C received from WPS stated that he needed to deal with the matter urgently, given the limited time remaining until the end of the tax year, and his SIPP provider’s deadline date of 14th March for TFC withdrawals in that tax year. It said this needed to be done at that time while the LTA charge was 0%, as it would save Mr C a little over £81,000. So Mr C was understandably concerned when things didn’t appear to be progressing by the end of tax year. And he explained in an email to WPS on 3 April 2024 how the delay was making him very nervous. It’s evident from this email that he was clearly concerned the end of the tax year deadline - that he’d been told was important - wouldn’t be met. Not only did Mr C email WPS several times to chase matters up but he also called. I’ve listened to the recordings of the calls WPS has provided and again it’s clear how stressed the matter was making Mr C. He even queried whether the individuals that had provided the advice were legitimate because no one was returning his calls. Overall, I think WPS’s service fell short here and caused Mr C undue distress and inconvenience. I therefore agree with the Investigator that WPS should pay Mr C an additional £300. WPS say this is double compensating for matters already addressed by its offer to refund one month’s ongoing service fee of £275. However, I don’t agree, Mr C had to pay an additional £137+VAT to his SIPP provider to make the extra withdrawal, following WPS’s advice. WPS said the £275 already offered, was to cover this fee and the service issues. But, when deducting the additional SIPP provider fee from this amount, I don’t consider the remainder fairly represents the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr C. So I’m satisfied an additional payment of £300 is fair in the circumstances. Particularly given that Mr C can’t be put back in the position he would have been in as he’s unable to pay his TFC back into his pension.

-- 4 of 6 --

Putting things right My aim in awarding fair compensation is to put Mr C back into the position he would likely have been in, had it not been for the advice. I’m persuaded that Mr C would’ve left his funds invested in the pension and wouldn’t have had to pay the £750 fee. It isn’t possible to put Mr C in the same position because he can’t put the funds back in the pension and has had to make alternative arrangements. So the below is what I think is fair under the circumstances. Surplus TFC Mr C confirmed that he switched to his new adviser on 26 June 2024 so there was an opportunity at this point to get advice about investing the surplus TFC, if this was considered an appropriate measure to take. So, I think it’s fair to limit losses associated with the TFC to this point. WPS should calculate what the notional value of Mr C’s TFC would’ve been if it had remained invested in his pension (up until 26 June 2024), and compare this with the actual value of the TFC on that same date. Mr C says the surplus TFC funds were held in his savings account. And he has also confirmed he receives interest annually in April and this was taxed. So, the amount he would’ve earned in interest should be on a pro-rata basis and account for the tax he eventually paid on that amount. Mr C should provide WPS with information on the amount of interest and tax, should this be required. If Mr C would’ve been better off keeping the money invested in the pension then there has been a loss. But if not, then Mr C was better off with the funds in cash during this period and no compensation will be payable. The advice fee Mr C paid £750 for the advice which I don’t think was needed. And had this not been charged it would’ve stayed invested in the pension. Any loss Mr C has suffered should be determined by obtaining the notional value of the pension, as at the date of the final decision, on the basis that this fee had remained invested in the pension. This notional value should be subtracted from the actual value of the pension, as at the date of the final decision. Additional information WPS is no longer Mr C’s adviser so if it’s unable to obtain a notional value or the actual value of the TFC or pension, it should calculate the notional value of the TFC and pension using this benchmark – the FTSE UK Private Investors Income total return index. This is suited to an investor that was willing to take some risk. Paying compensation Any compensation resulting from the above should if possible be paid into Mr C’s pension plan. The payment should allow for the effect of charges and any available tax relief. The compensation shouldn’t be paid into the pension plan if it would conflict with any existing protection or allowance. If a payment into the pension isn’t possible or has protection or allowance implications, it should be paid directly to Mr C as a lump sum after making a notional reduction to allow for future income tax that would otherwise have been paid. The Investigator stated in his opinion letter that Mr C’s likely income tax rate in retirement was presumed to be 20%. Neither party has disputed this so using this rate when making the notional reduction seems fair. Interest

-- 5 of 6 --

Any compensation resulting from the above loss assessments must be paid to Mr C or into his pension within 28 days of the date WPS receives notification of Mr C’s acceptance of my final decision. Interest must be added to the compensation amount at the rate of 8% per year simple from the date of my final decision to the date of settlement if the compensation isn’t paid within 28 days of WPS being notified of Mr C’s acceptance of my final decision. Distress and inconvenience WPS should pay Mr C £300 for the trouble and upset its advice caused. My final decision For the reasons explained, I uphold this complaint. WPS Advisory Ltd should calculate and pay redress as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Lorna Goulding Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --