Incorrect ISA advice given by bank.

jem16

honizz wrote: »

3. I have seen an email from one of the bosses at Sesame which clearly states the investigation is over.

But not what investigation nor the result.

4. The firm is still trading under Sesame
5. The claims firm is still trading
6. Both firms still seem to be registered with the FSA and the ministry of justice.(I have just checked)

And both have the same director. Do you not see that as a conflict of interest?

What concerns me most is the allegation that the claims firm will not handle the claim unless you agree to have the financial firm handle the transfer.

Do you think that's a good way to do business?

honizz

No not at all, but I have just read my initial form I completed and it says that the director runs 2 firms, 1 will manage the claim and the other will give feedback and recommendations about the pension. It goes on to say that regardless of whether you take the advice if a claim is to be started it will be started. In fact looking at my timelines, my claim was almost over before I transferred my pension so it looks like that it is not the case that you have to do one to do the other.

I also noticed something which makes the media concern over poaching bizarre. It says - this is copied and pasted

" If you have your own IFA who regularly looks after your pension, we will not be able to assist, please refer back to your IFA"

In the FAQS it says "The reason why we will not deal with anyone who has their own IFA is because we do not feel it is responsible to take custom from other IFA's. IFA's can also take on adhoc claims if they feel it is applicable."

In the T and C's it also states a few reasons why a claim will be stopped. The most interesting one is this -

a. If the claim is referred to an IFA / Network / Trustee the claim will be terminated immediately.


There are loads of firms where a director owns more than 1 company.

I saw an estate agent last year who also owned an IFA. There must be other IFA firms who own claims firms.

On top of this, I know they have a claims manager and a team of staff, and on the FSA register it looks like 6 advisers my adviser was not the Director and he didn't sign any of my claim paperwork either.

Alan Sugar must have 10's maybe 100's of companies, doesn't mean there are conflicts?

OK, I just went onto the claims management website, I looked for firms that looked like they might be IFA's - having a financial in the name. The first and only one I checked, is a firm where a director owns both the claims firm and an IFA -
All About Money Limited crm28604
Part of Think money group IFA

I would do more but I need to go to bed.

Damn, I found another

CRM 19025 reclaim assistance
Abacus financial services

Definitely going to stop now.

jem16

Honizz - I am really glad that you are happy with the way that this has been handled but the more I read of your defence of them, the more alarm bells start sounding. You are actually doing a pretty good job of confirming the allegations made against them.

honizz wrote: »

This is a point I have seen you raise about risk. When I was 18 -25 and had no idea about stockmarkets, property I would have classed myself as low risk. I know I wouldn't have wanted to risk money.

Now, a few years on my view of risk has changed.

This is actually the opposite of what happens in reality. Most people when they are young are able to take on more risk in their pension as they have 40+ years to smooth out the ups and downs of the investment. As you near retirement, you start to wind down the risk. This is why most occupational pensions have a Lifestyling option which reduces risk 10 years from retirement.

So their letter says, at the time he felt he was no risk - low risk.

As I said, if this letter was for me it would have been bang on.

So you have just confirmed that they attempt to go down the "not suitable for risk" road.

honizz wrote: »

No not at all, but I have just read my initial form I completed and it says that the director runs 2 firms, 1 will manage the claim and the other will give feedback and recommendations about the pension.

Why would they need to give recommendations about the pension? They are supposed to be handling a SERPS claim.

It goes on to say that regardless of whether you take the advice if a claim is to be started it will be started. In fact looking at my timelines, my claim was almost over before I transferred my pension so it looks like that it is not the case that you have to do one to do the other.

I also noticed something which makes the media concern over poaching bizarre. It says - this is copied and pasted

" If you have your own IFA who regularly looks after your pension, we will not be able to assist, please refer back to your IFA"

So you don't have to use our IFA for us to take your claim but we won't take your claim if you have an IFA already.

In the FAQS it says "The reason why we will not deal with anyone who has their own IFA is because we do not feel it is responsible to take custom from other IFA's. IFA's can also take on adhoc claims if they feel it is applicable."

Or in other words - "The reason we won't take your claim if you already have an IFA is that we know the chances of making money on the SERPS claim is almost impossible so we need to make money by handling your pension transfer. Unfortunately we cannot do this if you already have an IFA who would do that transfer instead of us."

In the T and C's it also states a few reasons why a claim will be stopped. The most interesting one is this -

a. If the claim is referred to an IFA / Network / Trustee the claim will be terminated immediately.

Yes they know it will be even less likely to succeed as proper paperwork would have been kept.

There are loads of firms where a director owns more than 1 company.

I saw an estate agent last year who also owned an IFA.

Oh dear! No doubt he tried to sell you a mortgage too.

Alan Sugar must have 10's maybe 100's of companies, doesn't mean there are conflicts?

It wiould be if he offered a "free" claims service provided you used his company for something that cost more.

honizz

I suppose there are always 2 ways or more you can look into anything. Let us imagine that the company is ok, in my world this is the way it looks. They have done nothing wrong to me or my friends, always been upfront and actually very honest about the way they would deal with me.

I have one question for DH I have already asked it but

Dunstonh would Sesame allow a firm to continue trading if they felt the firm were doing something wrong? Surely this would have repercussions on Sesame?

dunstonh

Dunstonh would Sesame allow a firm to continue trading if they felt the firm were doing something wrong?

I cant speak for Sesame. However, my gut feeling is that as Sesame have no remit over claims companies but only the adviser side, that all they can do is make sure that the advisory side of the firm is distanced from the claims company side. They can then monitor the advisory side with increased supervision to ensure that the advisory side acts in accordance with their rule book.

The issue is one of ethics.

For example, you say In the FAQS it says "The reason why we will not deal with anyone who has their own IFA is because we do not feel it is responsible to take custom from other IFA's. IFA's can also take on adhoc claims if they feel it is applicable."

Yet, there is a poster here who is handles compliance and complaints for directly authorised IFAs and he has had a complaint sent in from this claims company. So, how do you explain that?

Saying one thing but doing another is part of the problem.

honizz

DH just a quickie - I made a mistake the other day publishing a document and mentioning a name of a person in sesame. Once realised that this was a gross error on my part I rectified my posts immediately. But Yourself and Jem both copied parts of my text in quotes and some of those copied parts contained the persons name too. I asked both yourself and Jem to please remove the name, which Jem did immediately (thanks Jem) but you didn't! I'm pretty sure I had to ask you twice but in the end I had to ask MSE to remove it.

Why didn't you remove it?

H

dunstonh

honizz wrote: »

DH just a quickie - I made a mistake the other day publishing a document and mentioning a name of a person in sesame. Once realised that this was a gross error on my part I rectified my posts immediately. But Yourself and Jem both copied parts of my text in quotes and some of those copied parts contained the persons name too. I asked both yourself and Jem to please remove the name, which Jem did immediately (thanks Jem) but you didn't! I'm pretty sure I had to ask you twice but in the end I had to ask MSE to remove it.

Why didn't you remove it?

H

Because you never asked me.

honizz

Sorry, I was sure I sent you 2 pm's?

H

dunstonh

honizz wrote: »

Sorry, I was sure I sent you 2 pm's?

H

I just checked my PMs and nothing from you.

honizz

oops. sorry