Zurich said because Mr M did not challenge this at the time, it suggested that he accepted he transferred the pension on his own accord.
On top of this, the Fos investigator said they felt the transfer was likely in Mr M’s best interest from a financial viability point of view, and that overall they did not think the transfer was unsuitable.
Mr M disagreed with the Fos investigator’s decision and maintained that as he was new to the financial services industry at the time, and he did not have sufficient knowledge or experience to advise on a pension transfer at such an early stage in his employment.
Mr M noted that he had only completed his training about six months prior to the transfer and that his training was “rushed”.
Furthermore, he said he was “coerced into transferring away by his supervisor to meet company targets”.
Featherstone added: "I think it’s reasonable to assume that Mr M would’ve possessed a reasonable amount of knowledge about personal pensions. And in my view, likely a greater level and depth of knowledge about the subject matter than the typical consumer at the time.
"Mr M might not have had any prior financial knowledge or experience before working as an adviser, and he might only have been recently ‘qualified’ at the time in question. But he was deemed competent by his then employer to advise consumers on personal pensions.
"I think this more likely than not meant that Mr M understood the nature of a personal pension, the associated risks and also the fundamental difference between a personal pension and a DB or final salary pension scheme. I find it implausible that Mr M’s adviser training would not have dealt with the differences of these two types of pension."
jane.matthews@ft.com
