Skipton Building Society · DRN-6260767

The complaint Mrs T complains about the conduct of the Skipton Building Society (‘Skipton’) adviser she met with. What happened Mrs T was an existing Skipton customer, and responded to its offer of pension advice. They had preparatory meetings in order to gather information about her circumstances, and then on 30 August 2025 Mrs T had a first meeting with the Skipton adviser I’ll call ‘Mr C’. Mrs T complained to Skipton about Mr C’s conduct. That he’d told her in an aggressive, argumentative and condescending way that Skipton wouldn’t provide her with a comprehensive, personal and specific explanation of what it would do for her to justify its advice fee until she’d committed to paying that fee, and wouldn’t give her its advice if she was going to shop around. That Mr C tried to pressure her to commit to paying the fee, referring to being a ‘patient man’ who wouldn’t treat a client like a ‘stupid woman’, and told her this was ‘the most stressful call of his career’. Mrs T added that she’d not considered shopping around for pension advice until Mr C mentioned it. Having reviewed the recording of the meeting, Skipton agreed it had been inappropriate for Mr C to say it had been one of the worst meetings he’d had. Skipton apologised for this, said Mr C had been given feedback and was regretful, and offered Mrs T £100 compensation for her distress. But it thought Mr C had otherwise handled the meeting appropriately, including that he’d explained the process, the advice fee, the work involved, and Skipton’s policy of gaining a client’s commitment in principle to its fee before proceeding further. Mrs T referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, adding that Mr C had been unwilling to commit any time to her case until she’d agreed to pay the fee once she’d received its advice, whereas she’d wanted to see the advice before agreeing to the fee, to be confident it was value for money. That she’d not been able to proceed with her pension and retirement planning, and this experience had put her off approaching another firm. She wanted Mr C to be retrained so this didn’t happen to anyone else, and thought Skipton should have provided the advice she was promised, perhaps with a discounted advice fee. One of our Investigators considered Mrs T’s complaint. In summary, she said the documentation Skipton provided to Mrs T before the meeting explained its fees and that she’d only pay the advice fee if she accepted and implemented its advice. That the meeting with Mr C was an introductory meeting, not an advice meeting as Mrs T perhaps expected. That it was understandable that Skipton sought reassurance that she agreed with the advice fee at least in principle before it started preparing its advice. And Skipton accepted Mr C had made an inappropriate comment and the £100 compensation it had already offered Mrs T was a fair and reasonable way to put right the distress that comment had caused her. Mrs T rejected the Investigator’s view as it hadn’t alleviated her concerns. She reiterated some of the points she’d previously made, and added: • She’d spent a lot of time providing Skipton with her information and expected Mr C to

-- 1 of 5 --

give her more than generic information. But he didn’t give her enough relevant information to make an informed decision about paying the fee, give her the advice and service promised, or detail what the work would involve. • Mr C displayed sexism and ageism in the meeting, legally protected characteristics. • Skipton had only offered token compensation. £100 wasn’t enough for her unpleasant and insulting experience and didn’t make up for the time she’d lost to this process as a busy professional. Skipton should’ve provided her with the specific information she’d wanted in the first place plus a significant discount on its advice fee, although she wanted nothing further to do with Skipton now. • Mrs T provided excerpts from the MoneyHelper website that said customers must be told how much the advice was before they commit, that advice should be clearly explained, and that customers shouldn’t continue if they felt rushed or uncomfortable. She thought she should have been able to expect this from Skipton, and that there should be wider awareness of ‘hazards’ in the mainstream pension sector. But the Investigator didn’t change her view. As agreement couldn’t be reached, Mrs T’s complaint has been passed to me for a 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. For clarity, this includes listening to the recording of the online meeting Mrs T had with Mr C on 30 August 2025. In addition, I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice - many of these are found in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (‘FCA’) handbook under the Principles for Businesses (‘PRIN’) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’). I’ve also thought about what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. I note Mrs T suggests Mr C discriminated against her under the Equality Act 2010. While our Service is required to take relevant law into account, and I can confirm I have done so in this case, making a finding on this specific point does not fall within our remit. Only a court can make a decision regarding a breach of the Equality Act. However, I can make a finding on whether Skipton has made an error or treated Mrs T unfairly or unreasonably regarding this matter. Mrs T’s submissions include that she’d given Skipton her information and expected Mr C to give her more than generic information in their meeting. So it seems to me that Mrs T expected that in their meeting of 30 August 2025, Mr C would present her with tailored and personalised recommendations. But I don’t think Skipton led Mrs T to have that expectation. Because the documentation Skipton gave her prior to her meeting with Mr C made clear the first meeting with Mr C would be an introductory one rather than an advice meeting. The document titled ‘Your journey with Skipton’ explained, “When you first meet with your adviser, they’ll take time getting to know you, your circumstances and what you’d like to achieve with your money. From there, we’ll put together a financial plan that’s tailored to you and your needs.”, and it went on to detail Skipton’s advice process. And at the start of the meeting itself, Mr C explained the agenda was to recap Mrs T’s objectives, talk about risk and reward, talk about what pension changes Skipton might recommend if it did go away and review her pensions, and how its costs worked. So it’s the case that they simply weren’t yet at the part of the advice process where Mr C would provide

-- 2 of 5 --

Mrs T with personalised recommendations and fee illustrations that were tailored to her particular circumstances and objectives. Having considered the documents and listened to the meeting recording, I think Skipton made its advice fee as clear as it reasonably could at that particular point. The ‘About our services and costs’ document it provided to Mrs T prior to the meeting explained there were no upfront fees, but there’d be charges to pay if she chose to act on its advice. It set out the charging structure and explained that it couldn’t yet provide a personalised overview of the fee she’d pay to act on its advice, because her adviser would calculate that after their first meeting in their research and advice preparation. It explained that there would be a second meeting in which the adviser would present an individual breakdown of the charges along with the personalised recommendation report. In addition, in the meeting Mr C explained that the advice fee was 2.5% of any pensions that ended up being transferred and that, as the four defined contribution (‘DC’) pensions they’d be looking at for Mrs T were worth about £94,000, this would equate to a maximum of about £2,350 if all four were transferred, or that it could equate to less or even nothing if only some or none of the four ended up being transferred. And Mr C explained he’d need to obtain up to date valuations for her pensions as part of his research. Mrs T is unhappy that Mr C was unwilling to commit time to her case until she committed to paying the advice fee once she had its advice, and that he wouldn’t give her advice if she was going to shop around. In the meeting, Mrs T made clear that she thought hers was not a complex situation and so Skipton would not need to spend long researching and preparing its advice for her. It’s important to say here that pension transfers are complex transactions involving many risks. For this reason, advice on such transactions is tightly regulated in the UK and there are many prevailing rules, regulations and requirements that those giving the advice are expected to follow. Therefore, the preparation and provision of pension transfer advice, whether it involves one pension or many and whether it results in a recommendation to transfer or not, is complex and necessarily time-consuming. So before going away to do this work, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Mr C, acting on Skipton’s behalf, to have asked Mrs T if she was happy in principle to accept its advice fee which would be a maximum of about £2,350 if she ended up transferring all four of her DC pensions. In the meeting, Mrs T also made clear she thought Skipton’s fee was too high and she didn’t agree with percentage-based fees. In addition, she also gave details of the other firms that had contacted her about reviewing her pensions, and she asked if Skipton would discount its advice fee, which it would not. So I don’t think it was unreasonable for Skipton to have concluded from all this, including Mrs T’s view that hers was not a complex case, that Mrs T did not agree even in principle with its advice fee. Mrs T says Mr C tried to pressure her into accepting the advice fee and that when that was unsuccessful, he was insulting, abusive and discriminatory to her. Having carefully listened to the recording of the meeting, I’m satisfied that for the majority of the meeting Mr C was professional, polite and gave the level of service I’d expect. He was certainly trying to address Mrs T’s questions and concerns about the advice fee, but I don’t agree that this amounted to pressure selling. And it always remained open to Mrs T to choose to end the meeting, as she later did. However, the meeting began to go round in circles on the matter of agreement to the advice fee. Regarding this, Mr C said he had “infinite time and patience for any questions to get a customer to a point where hopefully they are happy for us to go away and get cracking with putting their report together.” Soon after, Mrs T said she didn’t think this was “terribly

-- 3 of 5 --

complicated” or that Mr C would need a vast amount of patience, but that she was a little concerned about his reference to needing patience. Mr C explained that he’d been told in the past that he’d been “incredibly patient” with customers that had lots of questions, and he agreed when Mrs T pointed out that was part of his job. I’ve considered this carefully, but I don’t agree with Mrs T’s view that Mr C was rude, aggressive or condescending, or made inappropriate comments regarding the matter of patience. Instead, I think he was seeking to reassure her that he would try to answer any questions she had. Soon after, Mr C expanded on this point by saying “I’ve heard customers who have told me ‘I don’t like my adviser because I ask him questions and he kind of implies I’m being a stupid woman asking these questions and he doesn’t like it’.” When Mrs T pointed out that she’d never mentioned ‘stupid woman’, Mr C explained he was giving an example of what another customer had told him, said he might not have chosen the right words and apologised. Again, I’ve considered this carefully and I don’t agree with Mrs T’s view that Mr C was rude, condescending, aggressive or treated her differently than he would anyone else. I’m satisfied Mr C was not commenting on, or giving his own view about, Mrs T or any other woman. But rather, he was relaying the experience and words of another of his customers in an effort to further reassure Mrs T that he would try to answer any questions she had. It’s clear Mrs T was unhappy with his choice of words, but I’m mindful that Mr C apologised for that in the moment. By the end of the meeting, both Mr C and Mrs T had begun to be frustrated and at Mrs T’s suggestion they agreed to end the meeting as it was no longer productive. At this point Mr C said, “It’s been one of the most stressful meetings I’ve ever had, so sorry that we didn’t click well, maybe if you decide to give us another chance, we get you booked in with another adviser you might have better rapport with. I’m really sorry, I’ve tried my best to explain what we do, what our charges are and be transparent with you, I don’t know what more I can do at this point”. All parties agree that Mr C saying this was one of his most stressful meetings was an inappropriate and unprofessional comment to make. And this is my view also. Therefore, I’ve considered what would be a fair and reasonable way for Skipton to put this right. In thinking about this, I’ve considered Mrs T’s suggestions. She initially thought Skipton should provide her advice at a discounted fee. But my role here is to put Mrs T back into the position she should have been in if not for Mr C’s error in making that comment, and it’s clear that Skipton had said it would not discount the advice fee for her. So Mrs T wouldn’t have had a discounted fee, and in any case now says she wants nothing further to do with Skipton. Mrs T also says she spent a lot of time gathering information for, and talking to, Skipton and that the £100 it’s offered doesn’t cover her time spent on this matter as a busy professional. But providing information and talking to the firm is a necessary part of the advice process Mrs T agreed to take part in, and while it may have taken some of her time, that’s not an error on Skipton’s part. In any case, Mrs T has acted in her personal capacity throughout this matter and not her professional capacity. Mrs T has suggested that Mr C attend training and that Skipton should consider her experience and change things at an institutional level. And I know she doesn’t want anyone else to have an experience like hers. But the role of our Service is to investigate individual complaints, not to tell firms how they should train staff or what their wider processes and policies should be. To be clear, I think Mr C’s comment was inappropriate and caused Mrs T distress. And I don’t in any way wish to minimise her distress. But in the particular circumstances of this complaint, I’m satisfied that the £100 Skipton has itself already offered is fair and reasonable compensation for her distress.

-- 4 of 5 --

Skipton has not yet paid this £100 to Mrs T, so it should do so. My final decision For the reasons set out above, my decision is that I uphold this complaint. Skipton Building Society has already made an offer to pay £100 to settle the complaint and I think this offer is fair in all the circumstances. So Skipton Building Society should pay Mrs T £100. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs T to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Ailsa Wiltshire Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --