Namulas SIPP (formerly the Self Invested Personal Harvester Pension Scheme)
(PO-8386)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr S’s complaint against LV= is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right for the part that is upheld, LV= should arrange to pay Mr S £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the maladministration identified.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr S contends that the administration charges which the current SIPP administrator LV= has levied are unfair because:

• they are not justified by the amount of administrative work which LV= has actually undertaken for the SIPP; and
• they are disproportionate to the rental income generated by the property held as an asset in the SIPP.

He also complains that:

• he experienced problems recouping rent arrears from Mr W, a former tenant of the property, because LV= had failed to countersign a licence to occupy for Mr W in March 2012;
• LV=’s failure to prepare a lease in January 2013 via their solicitors for Mrs R to sign on a timely basis led to her leaving the property in August 2013 resulting in a loss of potential rental income plus associated legal costs;
• LV= failed to satisfactorily assist him deal with an insurance claim in 2014 for water damage to the property whilst Mr B was the tenant there; and
•  LV= improperly tried to force a sale of the property in 2014 because if they had taken into account the lost rental payments from Mr W and Mrs R and also the proceeds from the insurance claim, there would have been sufficient money in the SIPP to cover its costs.

In order to put matters right, Mr S would like LV= to compensate him by:

• refunding the 2012 and 2013 SIPP administration charges totalling £3,000;
• paying the lost rental income and associated legal costs incurred dealing with the leases for Mr W and Mrs R of around £21,000 into the SIPP;
• paying his drawdown income for the three years during which it was not paid;
• paying him an award to recognise the distress and inconvenience which he  has experienced dealing with this matter; and
• amending the SIPP fee charging structure so that they do not exceed 1% of the property rental income.