Section 32

dicky_dunock

When i left an employer through closure in 1991 i was advised to put my company pension into a section 32 which i did.A few years later it was found that i was mis sold that pension and was awarded a sum of money that went into the same insurance company's, by the purchase of another section 32 to run at the side of my original policy.Now i find out that the insurance company have joined these two policy's together.I was under the impresion that this could'nt/should'nt be done.I was'nt even informed.Can they do this?

dunstonh

I was under the impresion that this could'nt/should'nt be done.

why?

Can they do this?

Yes. Although chances are they always have been linked. You are likely to have had one pot of protected rights and one pot of non-protected rights. With the abolition of protected rights in April 2012 and them being reclassified as non-protected rights, then you effectively have only non-protected rights. So, no need to keep them separate.

dicky_dunock

thanks dun

dunstonh wrote: »

why?..Because i thought you could'nt add money to a section 32



Yes. Although chances are they always have been linked. You are likely to have had one pot of protected rights and one pot of non-protected rights. With the abolition of protected rights in April 2012 and them being reclassified as non-protected rights, then you effectively have only non-protected rights. So, no need to keep them separate.

Each year i have had 2 seperate statements,now just one.Don't get me wrong,if it makes no difference to the eventual outcome on retirement,then so be it.

lindabea

dunstonh wrote: »

why?
Yes. Although chances are they always have been linked. You are likely to have had one pot of protected rights and one pot of non-protected rights. With the abolition of protected rights in April 2012 and them being reclassified as non-protected rights, then you effectively have only non-protected rights. So, no need to keep them separate.

Hello Dunstonh, I don't think the OP is saying that the insurance company merged the NPR and the PR, although what you're saying makes sense since the abolition of PR- It appears to me that the OP maybe referring to 2 different policies which the company merged. OP - can you please clarify

dunstonh

Each year i have had 2 seperate statements,now just one.Don't get me wrong,if it makes no difference to the eventual outcome on retirement,then so be it.

Look at the previous statements and see if one makes reference to protected rights and the other non protected rights. Then look at the current one and see if it is just non-protected rights.

Is the policy number different on the old statements? Two plans would have two totally different policy numbers. Two segments on the same plan would have the same policy number.

It is difficult to say without seeing the paperwork as you wouldnt expect a company to merge two independent plans but merging non-protected and protected is logical given events of April 2012. As lindabea says, we need clarification.

dicky_dunock

Thanks lindabea and dunstonh.


I have always had two seperate statements arriving in two different envelopes,on different dates,different policy numbers.Last week i recieved an "anniversary statement"i've never had one of these before,usually been called an annual bonus statement.This certificate i got last week my policy number that started in 1990 and my policy number that started roughly 1998/99.All the "sum assured" amounts are lined up with each individual policy number but lumped together to give an overall total.And bonuses for both policy's have also been lumped together to give an overall total.How can i tell if any or NP or NPR?i can't see that phrase on any statement.

dicky_dunock

I have received another statement and they have put both policy's together under the older plans policy number.i.e. its now just one policy number and not the two different plan numbers i have had in the past.

dunstonh

I suggest you ask them why. Changes like that tend to generate a lot of paperwork and don't normally happen out of the blue.

dicky_dunock

They've told me because its easier for me.How they work that one out i have no idea.My worry is that they are using the re-dress policy to help them to cover guarantees on the original policy.

mrschaucer

Have a look at this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4131125
as it is a similar scenario. It really depends on what you were told/promised at the time you got your redress payment and what proof you have. In my case I had been told that the redress payment would always be used to provide extra benefits, but the insurance company were on track to use it to beef up the original fund, as it had not grown enough to cover the GMP they had to provide. They too had merged the two pots over time. Luckily I was able to provide proof in the shape of their original letter to me accepting the redress payment.
Hunt out your correspondence.