The financial ombudsman has rejected a complaint from an investor over HSBC's £9,000 commission for setting up his Sipp.
The watchdog ruled against the complainant, only referred to as 'Mr S'.
He had cited a "poor level of service and advice" from the bank in his appeal to the ombudsman.
The Sipp holder rejected the offer of £1,000 compensation from HSBC, saying it was well below the £19,500 he believed he should be entitled to.
Mr S said the bank's decision to stop providing advice on pension transfers meant that he was forced to find a new pensions manager with the associated costs this entailed.
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}
He believed the commission that was paid when he set up the Sipp was to cover on-going management and advice.
Mr S arranged his Sipp through HSBC in January 2010 with regular monthly contributions of £5,000 being paid.
Commission of £9,000 was paid to HSBC, which was deducted from the Sipp over a period of 12 months.
Ombudsman Terry Connor ruled that the £1,000 offer from HSBC was "appropriate and at the upper end" of such cases, though admitting it was "small" in relation to interest costs incurred.
He said: "In my opinion, HSBC's decision to stop offering advice on pension transfers was a legitimate business decision.
"I appreciate though that this caused Mr S considerable inconvenience as he needed to seek advice from a different adviser in respect of the further pension transfer he wished to implement.
"However I consider that it is more likely than not that had HSBC provided this advice they would have charged a fee or received commission.
"Accordingly, I have concluded that as there is no documentation to suggest that when the Sipp was set up that HSBC would be under an obligation to provide such further advice without charge means that it would be inappropriate for me to recommend that the initial commission be refunded.
"Whilst of little consolation to Mr S, I do though acknowledge that initial commission of £9,000, when measured against monthly contributions of £5,000, is a significant sum.
"However, I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen that I should conclude that Mr S only accepted this relatively high cost because he had a reasonable expectation that he would receive future advice from HSBC at no additional cost."
HSBC accepted there were shortcomings in the level of service it provided and therefore made the £1,000 offer.