Opt out of SERPS/S2P?

jamesd

The FSA has just published a booklet on possible mis-selling related to opting out. See The State Second Pension (formerly SERPS) - were you wrongly advised to contract out?

Men under 45 or women under 40 at the time of opting out were probably not wrongly advised. Single people who wanted an inheritable pension and those who wanted more control or the ability to retire early are also probably not candidates for wrong advice.

juliew63

Hi , we have recently moved to Adelaide South Australia and have finally got around to transferring over my husbands pension . Plan commencement Nov 1988 (allied Dunbar) plan also says that contracted out in 1987 ? Really need advise on how best to do this , Aus company has offered to transfer for free , but want to ensure that we are getting all entitlements . Any advise would be greatly appreciated . have heard that if contracted out , we might get a lump sum ??

Thanks in advance
Julie x

Compensationitis

All contracts sold between April 1988 and January 1995 (some after that!) were misrepresented, the projected values used to make an informed decision whther to opt out were not based upon the actual charges affecting the funds paid in by the state. Millions of people have no idea that they were conned and the FSA is being economical with the truth while turning a blind eye to the problems it has caused, for obvious reasons.

dunstonh

juliew63 wrote: »

Hi , we have recently moved to Adelaide South Australia and have finally got around to transferring over my husbands pension . Plan commencement Nov 1988 (allied Dunbar) plan also says that contracted out in 1987 ? Really need advise on how best to do this , Aus company has offered to transfer for free , but want to ensure that we are getting all entitlements . Any advise would be greatly appreciated . have heard that if contracted out , we might get a lump sum ??

Thanks in advance
Julie x

You are best seeking advice in Australia as they would have a better idea of what options are available to you than we do here.

All contracts sold between April 1988 and January 1995 (some after that!) were misrepresented, the projected values used to make an informed decision whther to opt out were not based upon the actual charges affecting the funds paid in by the state. Millions of people have no idea that they were conned and the FSA is being economical with the truth while turning a blind eye to the problems it has caused, for obvious reasons.

Thats a bit of a strong statement and also inaccurate. There is no doubt that a significant number (probably a majority) wouldnt meet todays standards but you cannot measure them by today's standards. You measure them by the standards in force at the time.

Also, you say conned, that isnt necessarily the case either as in 1996, the SIB published that everyone that had contracted out to that point was financially better off. A lot of the problems started after 1997 when Labour began to reduce the rebate. That is something that would not have been expected back in the late 80s.

Compensationitis

Dunstonh, you amaze me, no not really, we've been here before some time ago have we not?

How long have you been in the financial services industry?

I have been around since 1985 and was an IFA up to 2002, what I said was indeed accurate in that ALL policies sold in those years were misrepresented by the manufacturers not the advisers, see http://www.fs-du.co.uk/stl.htm

Mind the gap Dunstonh, you might fall through!

Paul_Herring

Compensationitis wrote: »

All contracts sold between April 1988 and January 1995 (some after that!) were misrepresented, the projected values used to make an informed decision whther to opt out were not based upon the actual charges affecting the funds paid in by the state. Millions of people have no idea that they were conned and the FSA is being economical with the truth while turning a blind eye to the problems it has caused, for obvious reasons.

Would this be the document you're mis-representing/mis-quoting?

http://www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/pdfs/s2p_wrongly_advised.pdf

FSA wrote:

1. Were you an employee at any time between 1988 and 1997?

2. Were you advised to contract out using a personal
pension at any time between 1 July 1988 and 5 April 1997?

3. Were you above ‘pivotal age’ at the time you were
advised to contract out? [45 (men) or 40 (women) - this is at the time]

4. Are you aware of a particular reason why you contracted
out even though you were above ‘pivotal age’?

Only those answering yes to the first three questions and no to the last are considered to fall into the 'mis-sold,' group.

Note that the FSA doesn't preclude you complaining if you don't fall into that group:

FSA wrote:

I am not in the affected group

Should I complain?

Not unless you have particular concerns about the advice you were given.

Compensationitis wrote:

I have been around since 1985 and was an IFA up to 2002, what I said was indeed accurate in that ALL policies sold in those years were misrepresented by the manufacturers not the advisers, see http://www.fs-du.co.uk/stl.htm

Sounds like a case for the exception I quoted above.

Compensationitis

No Mr Herring, I am not doing anything of the sort, in fact I have never read that document.

Get your facts right before you post.

Or ASK me WHY I said what I did?

dunstonh

You said "All contracts sold between April 1988 and January 1995".

So, you have just accused me of mis-selling and I know damn well that I didn't. Certainly the level of documentation for those back then are not of todays standards but they were certainly compliant for the requirements in place at that time.

You have also basically said that you missold all yours as well. You, or those you know, may have been one of the unscrupulous types that sat in McDonalds telling people to sign a single piece of paper but it is foolish to say that they were "all" mis-sold.

Paul_Herring

Compensationitis wrote: »

No Mr Herring, I am not doing anything of the sort, in fact I have never read that document.

How surprising. :rolleyes: I suppose you were unaware of the study that generated that document aswell?

Get your facts right before you post.

I would have thought an official document from a governmental website would contain the facts (at least as the Government see them.) Clearly not the facts that you want or see them, but the two (your statements and the contents of that document) do correlate closely enough for me to make the assumption I did. Merely the conclusions are different.

Or ASK me WHY I said what I did?

I did - you even (half) answered it in the first quote I have in this post.

Compensationitis

If both of you had half a brain between you it would be a danger to consumers.