Pensions Mis-selling

exil

polybear wrote: »

It is mis-selling if the adviser (in this case it was the pension company rep.) failed to advise her that she would be better off joining the company scheme. I successfully did that with Barclays.

You missed my point. Look at the stories in this forum from people who went for the company pension option and are now struggling to salvage anything at all from the wreckage. There is no way a salesman can make a judgement about what is going to happen in 25 years.

defender_of_the_weak

If you were sold a RAC and a company scheme was available, which may have had employer contributions, then somewhere along the last 25 years, or from outset, the man from the pru should have discussed the alternative and pointed out the difference and potential disadvantage of the personal scheme.

polybear

Thanks for the replies so far. The paperwork I've seen so far does seem to suggest it's a personal pension; even as late as 1994 and during a financial review (we have a copy of the notes) the man from the Pru mentions the alternative of joining the company scheme but does not mention it as a recommendation etc. or say that the company scheme would be a better deal!!!
Wonder why?

exil

Because it isn't necessarily a better deal (due to the risks we have discussed), and he is a salesman for the Pru.

dunstonh

The paperwork I've seen so far does seem to suggest it's a personal pension;

personal pensions were introduced in 1988. Before that, the retirement plans were known as Retirement Annuity Contracts or Section 226s.

during a financial review (we have a copy of the notes) the man from the Pru mentions the alternative of joining the company scheme but does not mention it as a recommendation etc. or say that the company scheme would be a better deal!!!

We know that now but in the 80s, we didnt. Even the Govt put adverts on telly saying you could get more with personal pensions. Some of the RACs with guaranteed minimum maturity values, guaranteed annuity rates etc could beat occupational schemes pro rata on the amount paid.

As far as advice goes, its one thing to document it as an option. They key is to say why that option wasnt taken. That is the only thing that matters. For anything to be documented in 1982 is pretty impressive.

EdInvestor

polybear wrote: »

even as late as 1994 and during a financial review (we have a copy of the notes) the man from the Pru mentions the alternative of joining the company scheme but does not mention it as a recommendation etc. or say that the company scheme would be a better deal!!!

This is definitely grounds for complaint, as it is after the regulator ordered the industry wide pensions misselling review.At this point (though not necessarily earlier) he should have told her to join the company scheme.

It's very unlikely the Pru will still have any record of this so they will almost certainly give in to your complaint, apart from the fact you have the notes.

Definitely go for it.:beer:

polybear

Thanks for all the replies.
When I (successfully) claimed for mis-selling for my own personal pension (from Barclays in the mid 90's) I included the following wording in the letter:

".....to be reviewed in accordance with the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) Guidlines as at 25th October 1994".

Is this sufficient in this case also (bearing in mind it may originally have been an RAC or section 226) or should I quote some alternative wording also/instead?

Many thanks.
polybear.