Financial Advisers.

Libra1975

Sky still provided a service even if you didn't turn the TV on. But I get where you are coming from. They will have provided some services just by sending the letter out I'm guessing, just not sure it justifies the whole amount. Especially as there have been NO invoices for the money. So for example Sky or a mobile send you a bill each month detailing what you have spent.

lol marathonic you may have a point. It wasn't forgotten about in as much is I think we thought at some point we would have some money to do something with.

webmasterpolo

I would agree with the majority that you're not entitled to a refund, you were paying for ongoing service, which you refused to use by not taking up their offer of the annual review.

An important point is that the review would of checked over your investments performance and risk profile. You may have no new money to invest, but your old investments still need attention which is part of why you're paying for ongoing service. You should take up their offer of the review and find out if you're investments are still suitable, if they aren't they will advise what needs to be done with changes etc to make them suitable. You may not change, but your investments probably have.

-Web

gadgetmind

It's a bit like joining a gym and then never going for a workout.

Personally, I would never pay monthly for such "services" and would instead just pay a pre-agreed few for any services that I needed.

marathonic

A prime example of what could have been done for you, which I've had done this week, was a change in life insurance policy (despite having no extra money to invest).

My old policy was taken out 5 years ago on a 30 year term - so 25 years remaining.

It's now been replaced with a policy with the same level of coverage, over a 35 year term, for £6.22 p/a cheaper. The fact that is cheaper is negligible but the fact that it covers me for an extra 10 years, 10 years where a claim is most likely, is the main reason for changing.

I don't actually need coverage for 35 years, but a shorter term would have cost me no less due to minimum premiums in place.

Libra1975

Thank you all for your comments, the only thing I would say is that it was not sold as payment for ongoing services but as payment for future services. All the things we did thru him at the time had commission attached and therefore we did not pay a fee and was not for ongoing review by them if that makes sense. Also I still contend if they are going to charge us for something then they need to at least send us an invoice.

dunstonh

the only thing I would say is that it was not sold as payment for ongoing services but as payment for future services.

Same difference.

All the things we did thru him at the time had commission attached and therefore we did not pay a fee and was not for ongoing review by them if that makes sense.

As was the case with virtually all pre January 2013 products.

Also I still contend if they are going to charge us for something then they need to at least send us an invoice.

Not applicable or required as retained commission is not a fee for you to pay. Also, the initial disclosure documents and illustrations/charges information does state the charges that you pay and that effectively acts as the invoice.

Libra1975

Retained commission is for the products tho isn't it not his services?

Sorry I'm being slow here but why same difference? I remember the meeting clearly and he stated when we needed his services in the future this would be used to pay for them. He sold it as a buffer not an ongoing service. I am not mis-remembering this.

We didn't get any illustrations for the costs of services just a price list of what each level will cost i.e. admin, financial advisor etc if we used them in future. If I get a bill usually it's broken down into what is spent where. I am sure he has to account for his time. Not just a generic yes you are paying X per month, we don't know where that money went if that makes sense?

Sorry it's not that I necessarily disagree with what you are all saying just trying to clarify everything.

dunstonh

Retained commission is for the products tho isn't it not his services?

Sorry I'm being slow here but why same difference? I remember the meeting clearly and he stated when we needed his services in the future this would be used to pay for them. He sold it as a buffer not an ongoing service. I am not mis-remembering this.

Technically, trail/renewal commission was for the provision of the product at the start. It didnt have to be used for servicing. Although many advisers would use it to cover the cost of ongoing services.

We didn't get any illustrations for the costs of services just a price list of what each level will cost i.e. admin, financial advisor etc if we used them in future.

Most, if not all, product providers and platforms issue confirmation of the charges which include adviser fees. Often you get it duplicated a number of times. For example, point of sale documentation and followed up in the post from the provider.

If I get a bill usually it's broken down into what is spent where.

And that is what the point of sale documentation says.

I am sure he has to account for his time. Not just a generic yes you are paying X per month, we don't know where that money went if that makes sense?

There is no requirement to account for time. That would not be right. For example, it would penalise efficient firms and reward inefficiency. It would penalise firms that outsource work but pay for that. Also, you are paying for knowledge and liability. Neither of which can be measured by hours.

The requirement for post January 2013 (which cleared up most of the pre 2013 issues) is that you agree the charges and the services. No justification of why you charge an amount is required. If you offer services in that fee where the client does not decide to utilise them then that is their choice. Like paying a membership fee at a club but never using it.

There is also an element of cross subsidy built into the fees. It was initially thought that cross subsidy would not be allowed. However, it still is, albeit to a lesser extent than before. So, when pricing is set, there will be some people that make use of the services more than others but that is just the nature of retail services.

Libra1975

Thank you for that clarification.

Despite having paid over £2000 to them over a 3 year period for what appears to be 1 or 2 letters asking for a meeting apparently we owe them over £600. As the reviews of policies I would guess are only done if there is contact so the IFA is up to speed for meetings and recommendations I feel a little fleeced and laughing a bit as we couldn't have afforded to have any changes or recommendations as we would have spent it all getting the advice. He is going to send us a breakdown of where the money has been spent and i await that with interest. Especially as the fee agreement I have found says the contract with the company is between 2009 & 2010.

Libra1975

I've just read the fee agreement again, and it mentions stuff like getting a written report every 12 months summarising the investments we hold. We have never had anything like that. The fee agreement also says it would only review the suitability of the current policies if specifically asked to do so (in bold).