SIPP pension mis-sold?

EdGasket

dunstonh wrote: »

I guess you never go to a doctor either seeing as Harold Shipman was a murderer.

That's right, bunch of quacks

atush

EdGasket wrote: »

That's right, bunch of quacks

I try to aviod seeing the doctor if i can, just as i try to avoid getting financial advice if i don't need it. I don't go to the Doc for a runny nose (not ever for y kids) and I know that viruses can't be fought using antibiotics.

But I do go to the Doctor if I really need to, and I will pay for financial advice when I need to.

There is a difference between being self reliant and stubborn.

EdGasket

"and I will pay for financial advice when I need to."
There is an alternative which is to learn about it yourself and save a lot of cost and grief.
UK private pensions do seem to be too much of a lottery if left to your pension company and/or advisor. It would be better if there were just one nationalised scheme for everyone so that nobody loses out to the next person through no fault of their own.

gadgetmind

EdGasket wrote: »

There is an alternative which is to learn about it yourself and save a lot of cost and grief.

I'm inclined to agree but the regulations are massively complex and you always risk missing a trick and/or putting a foot or two wrong.

It would be better if there were just one nationalised scheme for everyone

Err, no. Anything reliant on HMG would be decades late, 100x over budget, not fit for purpose, and changed entirely (usually for the worse) every 3-4 years.

bigadaj

gadgetmind wrote: »

Err, no. Anything reliant on HMG would be decades late, 100x over budget, not fit for purpose, and changed entirely (usually for the worse) every 3-4 years.

Is this sounding a bit like the nhs?

dunstonh

There is an alternative which is to learn about it yourself and save a lot of cost and grief.

DIY is an option but there are plenty of DIY'ers out there that mess it up and end up costing themselves thousands. To DIY successfully, you have to have the time, inclination and willingness to learn and understand.

UK private pensions do seem to be too much of a lottery if left to your pension company and/or advisor.

Advice gives you consumer protection. DIY does not. No lottery with either option unless you don't give it the attention it deserves.

It would be better if there were just one nationalised scheme for everyone so that nobody loses out to the next person through no fault of their own.

Over budget, lack of options/flexibility and everyone forced to have the same. Lets all drive the same cars. Lets all where the same clothes. Lets all have the same consumer goods. Let no-one have choice.... Is that what you are asking for?

atush

EdGasket wrote: »

"and I will pay for financial advice when I need to."
There is an alternative which is to learn about it yourself and save a lot of cost and grief.
UK private pensions do seem to be too much of a lottery if left to your pension company and/or advisor. It would be better if there were just one nationalised scheme for everyone so that nobody loses out to the next person through no fault of their own.

I have already done that, and in doing so I know if I ever need or want an annuity or DD I would do much better to use an IFA as all the knowledge in the world doesn't help if the platform/provider you want doesn't sell retail to the public.

bigadaj

atush wrote: »

I have already done that, and in doing so I know if I ever need or want an annuity or DD I would do much better to use an IFA as all the knowledge in the world doesn't help if the platform/provider you want doesn't sell retail to the public.

Fair enough for an annuity but for drawdown there appear to be plenty of DIY options though still expensive for small pots.

atush

I agree, but if an annuity it is a no brainer to get advice. And our pot will be quite largeish so am likely to take some advice, if not ongoing.

Norfolk_Norris

Hi Guys - bit of an update.

IFA responded (eventually) with a letter basically saying he was party to the transfer to the SIPP but had nothing to do with the advice and transfer to the actul high-risk fund within the SIPP.

He stated that he had me down as an 'adventurous' investor, and that he did warn me that the fund "I had chosen" was unregulated and extemely high risk.

I have checked over the application for the high risk fund (not the actuall SIPP account application) and no where on there does it state who gave me the advice - there is no mention of him or the firm; it basically looks like he is saying YES he did the SIPP, but what happend after that was all my own choice (which obviously isn't the case). The application is not in my handwriting.

Becuase the FOS were already involved, due to his delay in responding, I have replied to them, quoting his letter (which he has also forwarded to the FOS), basically picking apart what he has said happened.

I am now concerned that it looks like on paper, was that all he did was recommend I move to a SIPP, but not what the funds were then invested in.

He was trying his best to distance himself from the high-risk fund, but also trying his best to look like he gave me warnings about it; he also mentions in the letter that my profile was adventurous, which in turn encouraged him to advise I transfer to a specific SIPP provider who happened to offer high-risk funds - and coincidentally, they offered the exact fund his 'counterpart' had recommended I go in to.

He goes on to disassociate himself with the 'fake IFA' saying they are not conected in a business sense, and the only input fakey had was to introduced me to him. This is not the case; I never actullay saw the 'real IFA' for either the SIPP account advice or the high-risk fund advice - it just happens to be his name and company on the SIPP applciation.

So, he didn't even give me the "SIPP advice only" he claims to have done.

In another part of his response, he goes on to try and justify why I may have selected such a fund; the letter details quite a chunk of personal information 'taken at the time of application', such as my job, my income, savings i had and residential status etc.

Absolutely none of this information is actually correct - the job was completely wrong, the income stated £15,000 higher than I actually earned at the time, the savings I had were £ZERO, but his fact find apparantly states I had £15,000 on deposit, that I had a loan for £3000 (my personal loans at that time were tipping £20,000) and finally that I was a homeowner... I was renting!!

I am not sure where this is going to go now; the FOS have written to me to explain they have now asked for more info from the IFA, and the case will then be passed on to an adjudicator.

I guess my realisation that the advice on the SIPP and the actual investment into the high-risk fund were in theory 2 separate transactions, shows how bad the advice actually was - until I received his response letter, I had no idea the 2 things weren't actually the same thing?!

I have managed to establish that 'real IFA' received the best part of £1300 from Hornbuckle Mitchell for the SIPP side of things, but am really struggling to find out if the high-risk fund provider paid any more commission to anyone -they are now in administration.

I would have thought the high-risk fund provider would have paid someone an incentive for the business? Otherwise, what would entice an IFA to recommend them in the first place?

Thanks awfully for you continued help!

Regards
Norris