Low cost IFA for DB to SIPP pension transfer?
Options
Comments
-
Insanity. This is raising the prices of so many things. Lawyers are extracting so much money from consumers and holding back business. Governments don't understand that that it is precisely consumers that are hurt by this exaggerated "consumer protection" through inflated prices.The FOS does not recognise waivers signed by people. It takes the view that the average consumer is not in a position to know what is right for them in complex areas and therefore not able to waive their rights.
However, there was an FOS outcome against an adviser earlier in the year where they recommended it was not transferred but the FOS felt they do not make the reasons against strong enough.0 -
Silvertabby wrote: »dunstonh and sandsy are right - reputable IFAs just won't take the risk of being sued when clients have spent all of their 'easy access' pension funds and are facing retirement without their final salary pension income.
I'm a retired LGPS administrator, and dealt with a lot of transfer out applications (from current members and well as deferred members) when the pension freedoms were announced. Some pension fund members tried more than one IFA (I think the record was 4) before finding one who would 'recommend' the transfeR.
Are you sure they needed someone who recommended yes? It's my understanding that all you need to have is taken advice, you can still go ahead even against advice? Or do you insist that there must be a yes answer?0 -
I actually got two <£1000 quotes now and can put you in touch with those IFAs if you would like. My case is pretty simple though and I gave them a 1/2 page summary of all the info.I'm in a similar situation to the OP. Its not the 'advice' I require but rather a sign-off to say i've consulted with an IFA. I've already weighed up the pros and cons of the transfer myself.
I understand there is a liability issue for the IFA as stated above. Maybe there is a template/procedure they have to adhere to. I don't suppose there is some kind of waiver I could sign to take on full responsibilty for the transfer? My CETV is only 3k above the 30k threshold too.
EDIT: If advice is obtained and is 'against' the transfer then does the IFA take on no liability? Presumably one can go ahead with the transfer.
If the advice is against the transfer then some pension companies won't accept the transfer in. However you can always transfer your pension in to a third company that accepts "insistent clients", and then transfer out to a company of your choice. You will pay an exit fee but it should be smaller than hiring another IFA.
My personal advice is don't do this unless you have a good idea what critical yield means and whether you are likely to achieve it
. I'm not an IFA so you can't sue me . 0 -
Insanity. This is raising the prices of so many things. Lawyers are extracting so much money from consumers and holding back business. Governments don't understand that that it is precisely consumers that are hurt by this exaggerated "consumer protection" through inflated prices.
The alternative is that stupid, greedy or naive and trusting people get fleeced by get rich quick schemes. And sob stories in the Daily Mail from such people take precedence over unseen generic losses.0 -
“ dunstonh and sandsy are right - reputable IFAs just won't take the risk of being sued when clients have spent all of their 'easy access' pension funds and are facing retirement without their final salary pension income.
I'm a retired LGPS administrator, and dealt with a lot of transfer out applications (from current members and well as deferred members) when the pension freedoms were announced. Some pension fund members tried more than one IFA (I think the record was 4) before finding one who would 'recommend' the transfeR.
Originally posted by Silvertabby ”
Are you sure they needed someone who recommended yes? It's my understanding that all you need to have is taken advice, you can still go ahead even against advice? Or do you insist that there must be a yes answer?
Another Joe - yes, the IFA had to recommend the transfer. Mind you, I've been retired for a while now so I don't know if this has changed.0 -
AnotherJoe wrote: »Are you sure they needed someone who recommended yes? It's my understanding that all you need to have is taken advice, you can still go ahead even against advice? Or do you insist that there must be a yes answer?
It doesn't have to be a yes. The requirement is to take advice - the transfer can happen no matter what the outcome of the advice.
But many advisers won't do the transaction if they don't think it should be done. And many providers won't take the funds if the advice suggested it wouldn't be in the person's best interests to do the transfer.0 -
Agreed but it just goes too far! Losses due to gross incompetence and misrepresentation should be sued about. If people want more than that, they can buy extra insurance.AnotherJoe wrote: »The alternative is that stupid, greedy or naive and trusting people get fleeced by get rich quick schemes. And sob stories in the Daily Mail from such people take precedence over unseen generic losses.0 -
AnotherJoe wrote: »The issue is not so much the work, but the liability insurance the FA needs to be able to pay for when in ten years time you come back complaining the advice was bad and you want compo.
There's even a case where someone advised not to transfer, the person transferred and they still got compo for the advice not being strong enough not to transfer ! So some IFAs simply wont even touch these cases now especially as people like you want it done for peanuts which isn't worth the risk to them.
Which might also give you cause to ponder as to whether this is a wise thing to do.
Do you have the link for this? I vaugly remember reading something, but I think the issue was that the client was blind or disabled in some way, the advisor was found not to have properly explained the risks (in a way someone disabled would understand) and the advisor actually did the transfer after advising against it. Though I guess it was the fact the advice was not clear enough that led to the liability which makes it scary to even think about writing it. Anyway, be good to read the case again.0 -
Ricky, They were not able to read. It was still (IMO) a terrible precedent, as CSMR implies, it all contributes to a high cost CYA nanny culture where people want to have their cake and eat it and the majority get additional costs for taking their own decisions,0
-
My fear at the moment is that there are some firms that are only going to be in existence for a short period or have even been set up intentionally to do low cost DB transfers and then close down leaving all the liabilities with the FSCS. Which means the long term genuine firms end up paying for it.
Did you know that new firms do not pay FSCS levies in the first year of trading? Great for those genuine firms starting up but it also means short term dodgy firms not only get away with the bad stuff, they also dont pay a penny towards the FSCS.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards