Standard Life Self Invested Personal Pension Scheme · CAS-77631-N7V4

CAS-77631-N7V4

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs Y

Scheme Standard Life Self Invested Personal Pension Scheme (the SIPP)

Respondent Standard Life Assurance Limited (SLAL)

Complaint Summary Mrs Y’s complaint concerns the death benefits awarded following the death of her husband Mr Y on 23 September 2020. She has said:

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the main points.

1 CAS-77631-N7V4

2 CAS-77631-N7V4

Summary of Mrs Y’s position:-

• SLAL, as the SIPP Administrator, decides on the distribution of death benefits from the SIPP. The Ts&Cs and Scheme Rules allow it to exercise discretion and pay to any person or persons that fall within the classes of beneficiary set out in those documents, in such proportions as it decides.

3 CAS-77631-N7V4

Adjudicator’s Opinion Mr Y’s complaint was considered by one of our Adjudicators who concluded that no further action was required by SLAL. The Adjudicator’s findings are summarised below: -

Rule 12.2 of the Ts&Cs provided that SLAL had the discretion to decide who should receive the lump sum death benefit in the event of the policyholder’s death within the class of potential beneficiaries (set out in both the Ts&Cs and Scheme Rules).

As the decision-maker, SLAL adequately considered the potential beneficiaries including Mrs Y and it sought to obtain sufficient information including information about her personal and financial circumstances to assist making its decision about who to pay the death benefits to. It was for SLAL to weigh up the evidence provided to reach its decision.

Mrs Y was given a fair opportunity to provide information in support of her claim to receive the full lump sum death benefit due from the Scheme. The fact that SLAL chose not to pay 100% of the benefits to Mrs Y does not make its decision perverse.

Mr Y nominated Mrs Y and two others as beneficiaries of the SIPP via his online account on 31 March 2017. Mr Y logged onto his online account frequently during 2019 and 2020 with his last log in shortly before his death on 11 September 2020 and despite checking his ‘Your details’ page, Mr Y did not amend the nominations.

SLAL made the appropriate enquiries to obtain sufficient information from Mrs Y to enable a decision to be made about who to pay the death benefits to, taking into account:

o the financial and personal circumstances of the potential beneficiaries;

o the relationship of the potential beneficiaries with the member;

o a copy of the expression of wishes form/death benefit nomination form; and

o a copy of Mr Y’s will.

It is for the trustees or other decision maker when exercising a discretion to determine the weight to be given to a relevant factor. Decisions about who the

4 CAS-77631-N7V4 death benefits should be paid to are not solely based on a beneficiary’s financial dependency on the member and therefore should not be considered the only factor taken into account.

The decision is within the range of decisions SLAL could reasonably have made in the circumstances and the Adjudicator did not consider that SLAL’s actions during the decision-making process amount to maladministration.

Mrs Y did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mrs Y provided her further comments in response to the Opinion. In summary she said: -

• SLAL did not make sufficient enquiries to explore Mr Y’s intentions and spousal priority was not acknowledged. The decision was reached through a flawed process that ignored relevant factors and relied on Mr Y’s failure to update the 2017 nomination. However, it did not investigate why the nomination wasn’t updated or Mr Y’s ability to update the nomination.

• SLAL did not consider their financial dependency or change in circumstances and failed to assess Mr and Mrs Y’s estate planning intention despite significant changes occurring in their lives after 2017. It did not provide an explanation of how each factor was weighed or why.

I note the additional points made by Mr N, but I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons Mrs Y’s complaint concerns SLAL’s decision not to pay her the full lump sum death benefit due from the Scheme.

Rule 12.2 of the Ts &Cs, in conjunction with the Scheme Rules, provides SLAL with discretion to decide how a lump sum death benefit should be paid in the event of the policyholder’s death from the list of potential beneficiaries. Key terms are set out in the Appendix. Overall, I find that SLAL was the appropriate decision maker, in line with the Rules and, as shown in paragraph 14 above, that it identified and considered the potential beneficiaries.

Generally, a decision maker properly directing itself must consider all the relevant evidence and decide how much weight to apply to each piece of evidence to reach a decision that is not perverse, this can include, at times applying no weight at all to information it may receive.

Mrs Y does not believe that SLAL applied sufficient weight to her personal circumstances before deciding to pay her 50% of the lump sum death benefit.

However, based on the evidence, I am satisfied that SLAL made reasonable and sufficient enquiries for it to proceed with making a decision. Indeed, SLAL gave Mrs Y another opportunity to submit further information to support her argument that she

5 CAS-77631-N7V4 should receive the full benefit, before proceeding with its decision. It requested information regarding Mrs Y’s interdependency on Mr Y and reviewed statements from their mortgage, joint account and a sole account held in Mr Y's name. It looked to ascertain what had changed, if anything, between the current expression of wishes being submitted and the date of Mr Y’s death. This was a reasonable approach to take.

SLAL presented evidence to confirm it considered Mrs Y’s financial dependency on Mr Y, the relationship of the potential beneficiaries with the member, the expression of wishes form and Mr Y’s will to reach its decision. SLAL is not obliged to explain the weighting of each factor it relied upon to reach its decision. However, nonetheless I note that its decision on how to pay the lump sum death benefit has been explained; in particular why it considered that the expression of wishes form entered into in March 2017 should still attract significant weight.

As explained in the Adjudicator’s Opinion, where a decision-maker has discretion, the weight attached to the information it receives is for it to determine. Ultimately, I find that SLAL, having identified the potential beneficiaries, considered relevant factors. Furthermore, I do not find that SLAL relied on irrelevant information, nor that its decision was perverse, meaning a decision that no other reasonable decision-maker could have reached.

I find that there are no grounds for me to remit the matter back to SLAL to consider its decision again.

Accordingly, I do not uphold Mrs Y’s complaint.

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman 27 January 2026

6 CAS-77631-N7V4 Appendix – key terms and definitions Ts&Cs

Lump sum death benefit

“12.2 We may pay a lump sum death benefit from your savings pot.

We’ll decide who should receive a lump sum death benefit, and how much, from the list of beneficiaries described in the rules. You can help us make this decision by giving us the names of the nominees to whom you’d like us to pay the lump sum death benefit. These can include the trustees of any trust you’ve set up. We’ll take your views into consideration but we’re not obliged to follow them unless you’ve given us a binding instruction to pay the lump sum death benefit to the Standard Life Bypass Trust.”

Beneficiary is defined in the Ts&Cs as: “… a dependant, a nominee or a successor, or any other person chosen by us from the list of beneficiaries described in the rules to receive the death benefits from your plan.”

Nominee is defined in the Ts&Cs as “…an individual or charity or any other person nominated by you to receive death benefits from your plan.”

Rules is defined in the Ts&Cs as “… the rules of the Standard Life Self Invested Personal Pension Scheme. To get a copy of the trust deed and rules please contact us. …”

The Scheme Rules (i.e. the Rules defined above), includes the list of potential beneficiaries set out in SLALs letter of 10 February 2021 to the Solicitor (see paragraph 14 above):

“… at the discretion of the Scheme Administrator, to or for the benefit of any one or more of the following in such proportions as the Scheme Administrator decides:

(a) any person, charity, association, club, society or other body (including trustees of any trust whether discretionary or otherwise) whose names the Member has notified to the Scheme Administrator prior to the date of the Member’s death;

(b) the Member s Dependants;

(c) the parents and grandparents of the Member or the Member’s surviving spouse or Civil Partner and any children and remoter issue of any of them;

(d) any person, charity, association, club, society or other body (including trustees of any trust whether discretionary or otherwise) entitled under the Member’s will to any interest in the Member’s estate;

(e) the Member’s legal personal representatives.”

7