UT-2023-000032 - [2024] UKUT 00265 (TCC)

After leaving SJP, Mr. Ashraf went to work for a financial services business called Tenet. When Tenet applied to the Authority for permission to engage Mr Ashraf, his lack of transparency with SJP was mentioned by Tenet, and this was followed up by the Authority. It seems, from copies of email exchanges in the hearing bundle, that Mr Ashraf had not given Tenet all the papers relating to his termination by SJP. He said he was unable to access them as they were held in his account on the SJP system to which he no longer had access. The Authority obtained copies of all the documentation, and they were shared with Tenet. At the end of this process Tenet commented to the Authority that Mr Ashraf had “declared the issues discussed up front on his application to Tenet and we feel he has been honest and provided as much detail as possible”. Although Tenet acknowledged that the points that had been raised were serious, they felt that, given Mr Ashraf’s disclosure and history in financial services and with their controls, they could reduce the risk of these issues recurring. Mr Jones showed Mr Ashraf an attendance note by the Authority of a call with Tenet in which Tenet outlined the detailed monitoring Mr Ashraf would be subject to. Mr Jones commented to Mr Ashraf that the Authority was not saying that his behaviour at SJP was acceptable, only that they were content for him to work at Tenet based on the oversight Tenet had promised to provide.

Two issues arose during Mr Ashraf’s time with Tenet that were explored before us. First, Mr Jones asked Mr Ashraf about the termination of his DB licence. He showed Mr Ashraf a report Tenet made to the Authority indicating that Mr Ashraf’s licence had been withdrawn because of concerns around the standard of advice given and the use of the insistent client process. Mr Ashraf said that Tenet were withdrawing all DB licences.

Second, Mr Jones showed Mr Ashraf a Tenet note of their review of 17 cases of pension switches. In 66% of cases the cost to the client after the switch increased. 100% of cases gave poor customer service as the reason for the transfer without any provider being used to show improved service. The reviewer commented that “There is no evidence of thorough factfinding, and the advice being linked to clear aim and objectives or signposting likely shortfalls in retirement. Overall there was evidence of poor client outcomes resulting from the advice.” The reviewer identified as “Risks” that Mr Ashraf “failed to complete any level of holistic advice for a large number of new clients and has repeatedly done the same thing with each client with little evidence of how it benefits the clients’ circumstance. There is a repetition of this across his conduct in other areas and there is no evidence he acts in clients’ best interests.” When she was giving evidence Ms Ford had observed that Mr Ashraf had moved some clients into the same provider he was moving others out of. She agreed with Mr Jones that there was an obvious risk of client detriment if they incurred a fee on switching when there was no need to move. Mr Ashraf said that Tenet had not reported any of this to the Authority and, if there was a serious concern, they would have done that.