Wealth At Work Limited · DRN-6171239

The complaint Mr J complains that Wealth At Work Limited (WAWL) refused to accept a contribution to his Self-Invested Personal Pension Plan (SIPP) before the end of the tax year deadline resulting in him losing tax relief. He wants compensation for his losses. What happened Mr J worked for WAWL until December 2022 and was a member of its employee workplace pension scheme, the SIPP. WAWL says contributions could only be made through salary sacrifice deducted from pay and as a deferred member no further contributions could be paid by Mr J. It says this was confirmed in a leaving pack sent to him on 20 December 2022. Mr J says he didn’t receive this and was unaware of the restriction, as the annual statements sent to him subsequently stated it was possible to pay further contributions. He says he wanted to pay a contribution of £46,000 before the end of the tax year (6th April 2025) and called WAWL about this on 26 March 2025. WAWL confirmed it wasn’t possible to contribute to the existing plan, and Mr J then spoke with its advisory arm. It said whilst it could provide Mr J with financial advice about opening a new, separate SIPP, the advice process around this couldn’t be completed before the end of the tax year as WAWL’s cut off for this had been 20 March 2025. Mr J raised a complaint during this call about the information on the statement and the refusal to accept further contributions. WAWL upheld this in part and says it issued a final response letter on 1 April 2025, which Mr J says he didn’t initially receive. In the final response WAWL apologised for any confusion, but said it wasn’t possible to pay further contributions as set out in the leaving pack issued in 2022. But that it would review the information contained in the “Statutory Money Purchase Illustrations” (SMPI) provided. When Mr J chased WAWL for an update on his complaint it provided a copy of its final response, and it said it felt he’d had time to make alternative arrangements. Mr J referred his complaint to our service and our investigator looked into it, but he didn’t uphold it. Our investigator said both the leaving pack and final response letter had been correctly addressed to Mr J. Ahe said the leaving pack did confirm further contributions couldn’t be made. He said there was some ambiguity around the annual illustrations which referred to further pension contributions, this was in general terms. And the projections also assumed that the same contributions from both Mr J and WAWL would continue each year and Mr J would have been aware that no contributions were being paid. Our investigator said the illustration also contained a note to contact WAWL for further information about it and the assumptions used, which didn’t supersede the leaving pack. Our investigator said it was clear that Mr J had wanted to make a pension contribution having received tax advice, and it was unfortunate that had he contacted WAWL a few days sooner, arrangements could have been made in time. He said Mr J had mentioned another pension plan during the call with WAWL but had confirmed he hadn’t gone on to pay a contribution. Our investigator said as it had never been possible for Mr J to contribute to the

-- 1 of 3 --

existing SIPP after he’d left employment, it wasn’t fair to say it was responsible for any potential loss. Mr J didn’t agree. He said consumers should be able to rely on the latest communications sent to them and WAWL had repeatedly provided incorrect information in the illustrations, leaving him no time to find a suitable alternative. He said his complaint was not about the assumptions on the illustration, but about the “core functionality of the account, and the ability for me to easily add funds”. He said there should never be incorrect information in an illustration, which stated that more could be saved into “your SIPP”. He said it was “laziness” on WAWL’s part not to have specific mailings reflecting the customers actual circumstances. He said the latest statement he’d received had now been changed and specifically stated deferred members couldn’t contribute. He said he’d only obtained the information about his income and tax position on 26 March 2025, when he’d called WAWL, so couldn’t have acted sooner, and because of the incorrect information hadn’t known he needed to. He said it wasn’t clear whether WAWL had posted or emailed the leaving pack and it had emailed the final response letter, which might have been filtered to his email junk folder, which automatically deleted after a week. As Mr J doesn’t agree it has come to me to decide. 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. Having done so, I’m not upholding the complaint. I understand the frustration caused but I don’t think it is reasonable to say that WAWL prevented Mr J from paying a pension contribution in good time, which I think is the key issue here. Our service can’t tell a business to change its procedures. And like any business WAWL is free to decide what products it wants to offer to new customers, as Mr J would have been had there been time to set up a new plan, and on what terms. And a pension provider doesn’t have to accept contributions for deferred members of a plan and there’s no evidence the leaving pack hadn’t bene issued. It’s also likely that the contribution basis and position for leavers was set out in the documents provided to Mr J about the arrangement when he first joined it. The information WAWL provided could have been clearer on the illustrations. Whilst these are largely standardised documents, with much of the content set out in regulatory rules, I can see why Mr J feels the subsequent revision about deferred members proves his point. But if Mr J didn’t have the necessary details until 26 March 2025, paying a contribution to WAWL was never an option with it either in the existing plan or through a new arrangement. I do understand Mr J’s comment about preferring to use the existing SIPP in view of the low costs and investment returns achieved compared to his other arrangement and not having time to identify a suitable alternative. But the necessity here was to contribute before the tax year end, to any pension plan, to secure the tax relief sought, and any longer-term investment strategy could have been addressed subsequently, perhaps by transferring to an advised WAWL SIPP. This option was put to Mr J during the call on 26 March 2025. He expressed reservations about duplication of fees, and it was explained that there were low- cost SIPP providers, with suggestions made such as Vanguard and Fidelity. So, I think WAWL was trying to be helpful in the circumstances.

-- 2 of 3 --

Mr J did have another pension plan that was likely to be able to accept his contribution. And as WAWL noted, there are a number of low cost, direct to consumer pension providers and many allow new plans to be opened right up to the end of the tax-year. So, it’s likely alternative options were available, and there is a general duty in law to mitigate one’s losses. Mr J was in receipt of advice, even if from a friend rather than professionally, over his tax position and the benefits of making a pension contribution, so I think it’s reasonable in the circumstances of 26 March 2025 that other options be explored, and importantly there was still time to do so. So, it isn’t reasonable to say that WAWL prevented Mr J from paying a contribution which resulted in the loss of tax relief. And as I don’t think it has treated him unfairly, I can’t uphold his complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Nigel Bracken Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --