Being forced to seek IFA on pension transfer

zagfles

atush wrote: »

But this rubbish was demanded by Which, newspapers etc.

Ie to make sure the consumer, however ill advised, or not advised could sue someone/complain and get compensation. Now the compensation is there. And it costs money. funny that.

Well, quite. My point was you're mainly paying for bureaucratic nonsense, rather than advice. I don't really care whose fault it is or who demanded it. I'm not going to waste my money on such rubbish if it can be avoided.

atush

well you wont have to if you dont have a DB pension that you have to get shot of.

Problem sorted. For you.

Problem is, everyone demanded all this rubbish to protect innocent (read stupid, ill informed whatever) consumers.

Now it is here. Be careful what you wish for.

atush

hyubh wrote: »

You keep on asserting that, but still apparently without evidence. Just one case will do.



What 'defined benefits' would have been 'transferred' in such a case?

The defined benefits from his DB pension. the capital value of which would be lost when asking for the contributions back.

You and I both know this is a case of shades of grey but thereis no grey in the law. As usual, lawmakers dont think of all possible permutations of law before they write it. Although I presume they are paid to do so.

Aegis

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You are living in 1988. You are so far from reality today that nothing in that statement rings true.

Is no-one allowed an opinion? I'm living in the world where I have project managed pension transfer reviews, drawdown mis-selling cases and pension switching over the last 18 months. I am qualified as a pension transfer specialist and whilst the list of things that Aegis quotes looks extensive most of the words will be pre-filled by the report writing software.

Are you assuming that all firms use report-writing software? My firm doesn't, largely because we don't trust them to personalise the report adequately for our client requirements. In any case, of the 11 areas I outlined for inclusion I would estimate that between 7 and 9 of them require complete customisation for every case, so even with good report writing software (which may exist, I can't really comment) I can't see how a full transfer report could possibly be generated in a short enough time for an adviser to be adequately compensated with a fee of only £500.

Aegis

hyubh wrote: »

You keep on asserting that, but still apparently without evidence. Just one case will do.

One case of what? This is regulation, it doesn't require case law. The regulations are on the following page:

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/COBS/19/1

It really is black and white; that entire page must be adhered to for anything deemed a pension transfer or opt out. There is a section allowing "execution-only" transfers subject to certain requirements, but most firms I've seen have taken the decision that their staff simply will not carry out execution-only business in this area because of the danger of a possible complaint if the outcome was deemed unsuitable retrospectively. Firms like HL, which specialise in execution-only business, have a very different approach in all areas of their compliance, therefore it is far easier for them to rely on this exemption.

Even if my firm allowed it, I wouldn't touch most execution-only business because there is always the possibility in future that a client will go to the Ombudsman and say that they were "advised" to do a transfer on an execution-only basis to avoid tedious restrictions. Although I haven't seen any such cases with the Ombudsman personally, some others that I have seen would lead me to believe that this could easily cause major problems in future for someone that predominantly deals in advised cases.

What 'defined benefits' would have been 'transferred' in such a case?

None, but that's not the point. It's still a transfer from a defined benefits scheme, therefore it still falls within the remit of COBS 19.1. It's a stupid application oft he rules, but it's far from an isolated case.

bmm78

zagfles wrote: »

So basically paying an IFA means paying for a load of unnecessary bureaucratic rubbish which (in this case anyway) isn't needed.

Pretty much in this context.

It's the price to pay for an environment where people often do not have to take responsibility for their decisions. In some cases they aren't even able to take that responsibility, even when they want to.

Unfortunately, the powers that be, regulators, media, campaigners etc are incapable of joined-up thinking, and are oblivious to "unintended" consequences.