The Pension Loophole article discussion

dunstonh

I take the point. However Martin is not just any journalist. He has a well-founded reputation as a (in lay terms) "financial adviser".

He holds no qualifications that are required to give financial advice. He has no regulatory control functions that advisers are required to have. Journalists are not required to. They can sail close to the wind you can sometimes feel the wording is too simplistic and a level that an adviser would not get away with but that is journalism for you.

My point about mis-selling is aimed at BestInvest as they have allowed me to enter an agreement that is detrimental to my interests.

They have no requirement to ascertain if its in your best interests or not because you bypassed the advice channel to buy on a DIY basis. They supply the DIY market.

I think that is a sufficient ground to go to the financial ombudsman.

You cant. You first have to complain to the company and await their response. However, your argument is that they did not give you advice. Problem is that they are not there to give you advice and you did not employ them (or anyone else) to give you advice. So, you cannot complain about the advice you didnt get. Best invest do have an advisory arm. You could have employed them to give advice if you wanted.

Also the inept manner in which BestInvest have handled matters (no communication unless I called; two separate payments from a company with a different name; arcane charges; a statement which is baffling...).

You employed them on a DIY basis. You get a DIY service.

As you say the Ombudsman may reject my complaint but I think there are some grounds.

I cant see any from your posts. Based solely on what you have said on this thread, there are no grounds for complaint. you neither paid for advice, asked for advice or got advice.

jem16

conkerer wrote: »

A very trenchant defence of the sceptic's position!

Far from it - it's actually the realist's position.

You sought no advice so can't complain that you got none.

conkerer

dunstonh wrote: »

He holds no qualifications that are required to give financial advice. He has no regulatory control functions that advisers are required to have. Journalists are not required to. They can sail close to the wind you can sometimes feel the wording is too simplistic and a level that an adviser would not get away with but that is journalism for you.

When I spoke to BestInvest they were aware of ML's suggestion for making a quick profit on the SIPP. They criticised him for not knowing or stating the true nature of the costs.
This raises two points: either they, knowing that investors were taking out a SIPP for this short-term gain, failed to inform us of the possible downside; also ML's website is endorsing a course of action which could be detrimental.
Both ML and BestInvest need to exercise more caution. I think that the current mis-selling scandal shows that the onus is on the provider and the de facto adviser.
BTW I appreciate the comments you are all making. I follow the logic. However I'm not convinced that I have no case. Still we'll see and I'll report back.

colsten

conkerer wrote: »

I take the point. However Martin is not just any journalist. He has a well-founded reputation as a (in lay terms) "financial adviser".

At no point ever has Martin Lewis claimed he is a financial advisor, which is a regulated profession he is not part of. See the general disclaimers on the MSE home page.

dunstonh

This raises two points: either they, knowing that investors were taking out a SIPP for this short-term gain, failed to inform us of the possible downside

You seem to be mistaking an advice service for a DIY service. I repeat, they are not an advice service.

also ML's website is endorsing a course of action which could be detrimental.

Nothing to do with best invest.

Both ML and BestInvest need to exercise more caution.

No. you need to exercise more caution. If you DIY, then you need to know what you are doing. Doesn't matter what it is you DIY at. If you bypass professionals then you may save money if you get it right but you do not have the protections in place if you get it wrong.

I think that the current mis-selling scandal shows that the onus is on the provider and the de facto adviser.

There is no current mis-selling scandal and there is no onus on a provider to act as adviser. Indeed, they have to intentionally not act as an adviser to avoid falling foul of advice regulations.

conkerer

colsten wrote: »

At no point ever has Martin Lewis claimed he is a financial advisor, which is a regulated profession he is not part of.

Point taken; however I did say "in lay terms".
If a man fixes my leaky pipe that doesn't make him a plumber. If the same man goes around continually fixing leaks and makes a living at it he may be thought of as a plumber even though he is not a member of a professional organisation.
Isn't that Martin's position?

jem16

conkerer wrote: »

When I spoke to BestInvest they were aware of ML's suggestion for making a quick profit on the SIPP. They criticised him for not knowing or stating the true nature of the costs.

So did you ask this before you signed up or after?

This raises two points: either they, knowing that investors were taking out a SIPP for this short-term gain, failed to inform us of the possible downside; also ML's website is endorsing a course of action which could be detrimental.

BestInvest don't need to inform you of any downside - that's up to you to research when you DIY.

Both ML and BestInvest need to exercise more caution. I think that the current mis-selling scandal shows that the onus is on the provider and the de facto adviser.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions?

You tried to make a fast buck and you failed to take heed of all the warnings of it being risky.

Time to accept that you made a wrong decision, learn from it and move on.

BTW I appreciate the comments you are all making. I follow the logic. However I'm not convinced that I have no case. Still we'll see and I'll report back.

You don't seem to be following the logic though. You want to blame someone for your own mistake.

colsten

conkerer wrote: »

ML's website is endorsing a course of action which could be detrimental.

did you not read all the disclaimers in the MSE article? and the posts on the forum that reminded you of the disclaimers? MSE endorsed nothing.

conkerer wrote: »

Both ML and BestInvest need to exercise more caution.

It is investors who need to exercise more caution. You cannot blame MSE or BestInvest or any other firm if people choose not to read what it says in their published information, or if people choose to only pick random parts of the published information.

conkerer wrote: »

I think that the current mis-selling scandal shows that the onus is on the provider and the de facto adviser.

There is no such thing as a "de-facto adviser". Some of us consumers need to seriously grow up and take responsibility for our own actions as adults. It is quite ridiculous to suggest you have been "mis-sold" just because you chose to ignore all the disclaimers which were there for a good reason.

jem16

conkerer wrote: »

If a man fixes my leaky pipe that doesn't make him a plumber. If the same man goes around continually fixing leaks and makes a living at it he may be thought of as a plumber even though he is not a member of a professional organisation.
Isn't that Martin's position?

You still wouldn't be entitled to any compensation if your house was flooded due to you using an unregulated plumber.

colsten

conkerer wrote: »

Point taken; however I did say "in lay terms".
If a man fixes my leaky pipe that doesn't make him a plumber. If the same man goes around continually fixing leaks and makes a living at it he may be thought of as a plumber even though he is not a member of a professional organisation.
Isn't that Martin's position?

Not that I need or want to defend Martin Lewis or MSE - he can do this much better for himself. But to follow you analogy, you are suggesting Martin Lewis/MSE make a living from giving investment advice. He doesn't and they don't, and there was never any suggestion by them that he does/they do.

It is unfortunate that you decided to take a piece of journalism as financial advice, and to ignore all the disclaimers. I hope you learnt a valuable lesson and will be better prepared for the next financial decision you take.