The Pension Loophole article discussion

johnfthetraveller

I am aware that the responsibility for my own decisions lies fairly and squarely with myself. I have admitted that I failed to do my due diligence in a previous post, and there is no doubt that Martin gave adequate caveats that he cannot be held legally responsible.

So let me put aside my personal disappointment. The following still is true:

In the light of what I now know, Martin's "idea" seems ill-advised, and for a reason that I would have expected MSE researchers to have spotted. Martin has vastly more resources than I to do research, but still, it was my bad. However, I don't feel that the article meets his usually high standards, and I'm disappointed that the "Pension Loophole" article is still there in it's original format.

jem16

johnfrith wrote: »

I'm disappointed that the "Pension Loophole" article is still there in it's original format.

Have you told them the issues that you have encountered and asked them to rethink their article?

johnfthetraveller

jem16 wrote: »

Have you told them the issues that you have encountered and asked them to rethink their article?

I've been in the situation before where I wanted to give feedback, but am not aware of any mechanism to do so. Under the "Contact Us" link, the most appropriate answer I could find was this:

"Can I ask Martin a MoneySaving question? - No, sorry. Thousands try every day, but we simply don't have the resources to help."

conkerer

colsten wrote: »

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.

Nonsense (and very patronising too).
If ML is not a financial adviser then perhaps he should not offer financial advice because that is what he did in this case at least.

The Citizen's Advice Bureau advisers have to take out legal indemnity to cover their advice. I should have thought that MSE would have taken legal cover in case their recommendations were injurious. In this litigious age it would be foolhardy not to do so.

jem16

conkerer wrote: »

Nonsense (and very patronising too).

It's neither nonsense nor patronising. It happens to be the truth.

If ML is not a financial adviser then perhaps he should not offer financial advice because that is what he did in this case at least.

The Citizen's Advice Bureau advisers have to take out legal indemnity to cover their advice. I should have thought that MSE would have taken legal cover in case their recommendations were injurious. In this litigious age it would be foolhardy not to do so.

This site make it very clear that nothing on it constitutes financial advice.

Important! How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

At least johnfrith acknowledges that it was his mistake not to look into it properly.

conkerer

[QUOTE=jem16;67293939
This site make it very clear that nothing on it constitutes financial advice.

At least johnfrith acknowledges that it was his mistake not to look into it properly.[/QUOTE]

I don't know whether you're wilfully obtuse or just acting as an MSE Rottweiler.
If I announce that I am not a thief and then pick someone's pocket, I am a thief no matter what I may say.
If you disagree with the logic in that sentence please point out my error.
ML can say he is not a financial adviser but as he gives financial advice he is, ipso facto, one.
He may not be a member of a trade body, he may say that his recommendations are not financial advice but that is utterly disingenuous.
Please don't keep repeating the same defence, I've understood your point. I think it is illogical and I've demonstrated why.

johnfthetraveller

"I have benefited from the financial advice I've received from this site."

I wonder how many of the millions that subscribe to the MSE email would unhesitatingly agree with this statement!

I would too, but if the site doesn't actually give financial advice, I've obviously misunderstood something!

dunstonh

If ML is not a financial adviser then perhaps he should not offer financial advice because that is what he did in this case at least.

He does not offer financial advice. He offers journalistic opinion.

the Citizen's Advice Bureau advisers have to take out legal indemnity to cover their advice.

They dont do regulated financial advice either.

I should have thought that MSE would have taken legal cover in case their recommendations were injurious.

MSE does not make recommendations in terms of regulated advice. It is not authorised to do so.

ML can say he is not a financial adviser but as he gives financial advice he is, ipso facto, one.

He doesnt give financial advice though and does not have the regulatory permissions or qualifications. Just because you call him an adviser, does not make him one.

He may not be a member of a trade body, he may say that his recommendations are not financial advice but that is utterly disingenuous.

I would not argue that journalists sometimes go too far in my opinion and this site certainly has articles and wording that a financial adviser would not get away with. However, as there is no advice being given, they dont have to follow regulatory requirements in respect of advice.

You employ an adviser to give you advice. It costs you, you get a range of disclosures and a contract is created. How much did you pay Martin Lewis and what does your contract say?

kidmugsy

conkerer wrote: »

I don't know whether you're wilfully obtuse or just acting as an MSE Rottweiler.
If I announce that I am not a thief and then pick someone's pocket, I am a thief no matter what I may say.
If you disagree with the logic in that sentence please point out my error.
ML can say he is not a financial adviser but as he gives financial advice he is, ipso facto, one.

Are you being wilfully dim? "Financial advice" and "Financial Advisor" are terms of art: "financial advice" isn't any old suggestion or recommendation made on a website or in the pub; it's a carefully defined and highly regulated legal entity. So MSE isn't a "Financial Adviser" however pigheadedly you try to insist it is.

Tipper

I was wondering if someone could suggest a way out of the MSE pension loophole for me.

I opened my SIPP in August with £8,000 and the tax relief of £2,000 was added in October. When I sent in my request that I would like to take my pension as a lump sum under the government's triviality 'small pots pension benefits' allowance, they wrote back saying that my estimated total benefits are greater than the current small benefits limit of £10,000 and that therefore this option is not available to me.