How a redress claim works

Five clear stages, with no upfront cost to you.

  1. 1
    Free indicative assessment

    We compare the cost of buying back your defined-benefit pension today against your current pension value — the difference is your indicative shortfall. If your former adviser has failed (FSCS list), the award is capped at £85,000 per claim. If the firm is still trading, the claim is pursued directly and is not subject to that cap.

  2. 2
    Sign a Letter of Authority

    Once you're happy to proceed, you sign a digital Letter of Authority so we can request scheme records and act on your behalf.

  3. 3
    Detailed case build

    Our advisers obtain transfer values, original advice files and scheme data, then prepare your formal complaint, your assistance is vital to expedite matters.

  4. 4
    Your claim submission

    We submit and manage the claim through to final adjudication, keeping you updated at every stage.

  5. 5
    You receive any compensation

    If your claim is upheld, the FSCS or the Firm pays the compensation directly to you. Our fee is only payable on a successful outcome.

If your firm has failed

The FSCS route — full timeline

The five stages above in detail: Letter of Authority, evidence gathering, loss assessment, FSCS adjudication and payment. Compensation capped at £85,000 per claim.

Read the full FSCS-route walkthrough →
If your firm is still trading

The FOS route — different from FSCS

When your former adviser firm is still authorised, the complaint goes to them first (8-week response window) and, if needed, on to the Financial Ombudsman Service. There's no FSCS £85,000 cap, but FOS investigations typically take 6–12 months.

Read the full FOS-route walkthrough →
Financial Ombudsman Service evidence

Why the FOS and FSCS uphold these claims

The FOS has upheld a high percentage of complaints concerning Defined Benefit pension transfers. The pattern across decisions is consistent.

“Cases are typically upheld when advisers failed to prove the transfer was in the client's best interest.”

Financial Ombudsman Service — pattern across upheld DB transfer decisions
Valuable guarantees ignored

Advisers regularly failed to properly account for the secure, guaranteed nature of DB schemes — index-linked income for life, spouse pensions and inflation-linked increases — which the FOS treats as generally superior to the risks of a personal pension.

Unsuitable advice

Recommendations to transfer were frequently deemed unsuitable, particularly where investors had a low tolerance for risk or limited capacity for loss. Cautious clients should not have been moved out of secure schemes.

Unrealistic critical yields

The investment return required to match the original DB pension was often unrealistically high — for example, 7.68% per year — meaning the transferred pot was almost certain to underperform the benefits given up.

Failed documentation

FOS decisions repeatedly note a lack of evidence on the adviser's file justifying the transfer — no clear suitability rationale, no demonstrated need, no proper analysis of alternatives.

Starting position: transfers presumed unsuitable

The FOS operates on the assumption that transferring out of a Defined Benefit scheme is not in the client's best interest. The burden of proof sits squarely on the firm to demonstrate the advice was suitable — not on you.

Redress restores the position you'd have been in

Where complaints are upheld, firms are required to put the consumer back in the position they would have been in had they remained in the scheme. This routinely involves significant restitution for lost secure income and growth.