pension mis-sold

dunstonh

Or perhaps the idea is that the person liberates the 25% tax free cash, which after April anyone over 50 can do without needing to take a pension, and pays the fee out of that.Compo gets paid into pension to replace the TFC.Quite neat

And how foolish that would be. It would be comparable to those companies that were fined for "unlocking" pensions.

WP bonds and contracted out pensions are next I have heard.The latter has been flagged for some time, and the FOS has already found in favour of several cases of the former.

Contracting out is not a concern of the regulator. One option contains political risk, the other option contains investment risk. There is no risk free option and there is no clear decision to make one way or the other. We were told that the FSA have no problem with advice upto date and will not be applying any retrospective action on contracting out. However, going forward, they do have concerns about bulk contracting in and have said that advice should be individual and not bulk.

WP Bonds have no issues of concern unless the bond was sold whilst an MVR was already in place on the same fund that the business was placed into.

It was interesting what you said the other day DH about the DPA-related destruction, hadn't heard that before. Karma, you might call it

Yes, the old guideline of destroying client files 6 years after commencement back in the old days has really cost a lot of money in complaints that may not have been mis-sold but just cannot prove it.

If posters stay away from insurance company SIPPs they should be OK

Why? what makes an insurance company SIPP and less suitable than any other SIPP. I know you will say charges but in this current climate, charges are coming down so fast that there will be very little difference between any of the schemes within a year or two. You should not rule out peace of mind that goes with having a contract with a brand name rather than some unknown entity. Even if it costs more.

ReportInvestor

dunstonh wrote:

You should rule out peace of mind that goes with having a contract with a brand name rather than some unknown entity. Even if it costs more.

Presumably you meant the opposite, dh, and just missed out a "not" after word 2.

EdInvestor

You should [not]rule out peace of mind that goes with having a contract with a brand name rather than some unknown entity. Even if it costs more.

Really, words fail me.

Peace of mind with an insurance company? Where have you been for the past 5 years? Have you forgotten Equitable Life, Standard Life, Pearl and NPI, Royal and Sun Alliance - now renamed Phoenix as if it is about to rise from the ashes....as if
What about Allied Dunbar (known as Allied Crowbar for many years and with good reason)?

Have you no concept of the losses on endowments, pensions, WP bonds people have taken over the past few years? Look at the volume of misselling complaints on endowments alone.

Dealing with any member of the Pond Life fraternity is like going into a vipers nest. Even the supposedly oh so ethical Friends Provident, founded by Quakers, refuses to take responsibility for wrongdoing, fighting all misselling complaints tooth and nail and wrongly time-barring people as a matter of routine.

Almost any other company in the financial services industry is likely to be better to deal with than a life assurance company. The products of these firms ought to carry a prominent health warning: Buyer beware. :mad:

dunstonh

Correct. Missed out "not" in the sentence.

Ed, I'm trying to work out how to respond but I cannot. Other than say what a complete load of tosh that post is.