CH-2024-000293 - [2025] EWHC 2980 (Ch)

Fecha: 14-Nov-2025

Ms Y – the Ombudsman’s conclusions and reasoning

31.

The Ombudsman considered that Ms Y had referred a “complaint” rather than a “dispute” as, at [1], the Ombudsman refers to his perception that all the respondents “have complained on similar points” (my emphasis).

32.

At [2], the Ombudsman summarised Ms Y’s complaint as follows:

2.1
Brambles has provided her with a very poor service and has failed to respond to her requests for information.
2.2
Additionally, she is concerned that she cannot transfer out of the Eleven Scheme or sell the investment and has never received any rental return.

33.

At [26], the Ombudsman expanded that summary somewhat suggesting that Ms Y was also suspicious of a “scam which had taken place on transferring into the Eleven Scheme in 2013”. Moreover, the Ombudsman’s reasoning at [27] is only consistent with the Ombudsman concluding that Ms Y was complaining of a “scam” in addition to the matters I have summarised in paragraph 32.

34.

The appellants prepared a chronology of events relevant to the appeal as a whole but have not gone into any great detail on events relevant to Ms Y’s complaint. Doing the best I can with references to Ms Y in the Determination itself, I note the following findings of the Ombudsman:

Ms Y’s complaint was notified to the Ombudsman in January 2022 ([27]).

ii)

In 2015, Ms Y “requested a sale of the assets underlying her pension” ([23]). As far as I can tell, the Determination does not mention Ms Y’s date of birth, but Ms Pope-Williams relayed on instructions what the appellants considered Ms Y’s date of birth to be. Ms Y would have been over 55 in 2015 and therefore it can be inferred that her request was driven by a wish to start, or prepare to start, drawing her pension.

iii)

Although I cannot see a specific finding to this effect, it must be the case that Ms Y received no cash in response to her requests in 2015. That is what she said in her complaint and it is difficult to see how she could have received anything in 2015 given the Ombudsman’s findings that all of the investments of the Schemes were worthless. Moreover, at [26], the Ombudsman does not doubt Ms Y’s assertion that she received nothing in 2015.

iv)

At [26], the Ombudsman records that Ms Y’s concerns about realisation of her investments were answered by Brambles in 2015 with the result that it was “understandable that she did not complain [to the Ombudsman] in 2015”.

Ms Y reported Brambles to “certain authorities” in 2015 ([24]). It is not clear whether she reported the Trustees to those authorities as well. I have not been shown the details of that report, but it appeared to relate to “confusion about ownership records around her investment”.

35.

In 2022, when Ms Y’s complaint was first notified to him, the Ombudsman exercised discretion under Regulation 5(3). [26] and [28] suggest that he concluded that (i) the act or omission that was the subject of Ms Y’s complaint took place in 2015, (ii) therefore, Ms Y brought her complaint later than the deadline specified in Regulation 5(1), but (iii) the Ombudsman would exercise discretion under Regulation 5(3) to extend that deadline to 2022. The Ombudsman’s reason for exercising discretion in this way is recorded at [26]. While Ms Y knew about “peripheral issues”, such as liquidity problems, in 2015, she did not know about the “true acts and omissions” relating to the suspicion that she was the victim of a scam at that point.

36.

However, the Ombudsman adopted different reasoning in the Determination. He remained of the view that the acts or omissions that were the subject of Ms Y’s complaint took place in 2015. Ms Y had therefore notified her complaint later than the deadline specified by Regulation 5(1). However, he concluded that Ms Y only knew of those acts or omissions in May 2019 following discussions with the Financial Repayment Service. It was only following those discussions that “she knew she had cause to complain about a potential scam”. He therefore concluded that Ms Y’s complaint was in-time by reference to the deadline in Regulation 5(2).

37.

At [29], the Ombudsman gave a further reason. Even if Ms Y “suspected she had been scammed as early as 2015”, so that her complaint was not in time by reference to the Regulation 5(2) time limit, the Ombudsman would exercise his discretion under Regulation 5(3) and extend the deadline specified in Regulation 5(1). He said he would do so because of ongoing health issues that Ms Y had suffered since 2015.