Decision of Financial Ombudsman upheld where appellant met statutory definition of a pension provider

Financial regulation – Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017 – whether appellant came within the definition of a pension provider under the 2017 Act at the relevant time – whether the appellant came within the definition of a Financial Services Provider under the 2017 Act at the relevant time – whether the 2017 Act permits the respondent to choose between proceeding by way of s. 60 or s. 61 where a body comes within the definition of both a financial services provider and a pension provider – relevant legal principles to apply to the respondent’s choice as between s. 60 and s. 61 – appropriate standard of review that Court should apply when reviewing a decision of the respondent to choose one section over the other – whether it was appropriate, in the circumstances of the complaint, for the respondent to consider the complaint under s. 60 – 2017 Act permits the respondent to choose between proceeding by way of s. 60 or s. 61 where a complaint is made about a body who comes within both the definition of a pension provider and a Financial Services Provider – appropriate standard of review in respect of the respondent’s decision to treat the complaint as one appropriately dealt with under s. 60 was whether the decision was vitiated by a serious and significant error or series of such errors – in applying the Ulster Bank test, the respondent did not make a serious and significant error in deciding that, having regard to the nature of the complaint, it was appropriate to consider the complaint under s. 60.