"Opt of of Serps" - Is it still active?

agarnett

I agree with MattyGroves. You align yourself with someone who has the ability to show you what needs fixing with a little more clarity than you can see it using your own resources i.e. without the hoist.

If you are sensible you are wary of what you are told because notoriously garages with hoists who sell exhausts and quick fit brakes and the like will sell you anything of dubious quality just because you walked into their domain and were ignorant enough to say yes.

We weren't told how the the poster speciality ended up talking to this particular financial adviser but I think we can all read between the lines that he was presented with whatever near enough new exhaust happened to be on the adviser's shelf without much being said about exactly what was wrong with the existing product - certainly not anything that has made it to the surface yet in this thread.

My reading of what speciality said is simply that this particular IFA was in welcome to my spider's web/wham bang thank you M'am mode.

It is therefore the adviser's conduct which the poster wonders if he should complain about - the way that the advisor set out to conduct "selling".

The fact is that no ombudsman staff or FCA staff has the wit to cause such IFA's any consternation until they actually do badly sell a product in some misleading way which then does go obviously wrong.

FOS/FCA are bit like the 2015 police force in that respect. Unless there's blood on the streets and the ambulance is needed, they haven't the inclination to do much at all.

We the public are not impressed by industry types who so frequently say that the FOS will think you are daft and won't do anything.

That's exactly what we hear from louts on our streets about the police if you suggest that you will call police and ask them to feel the lout's collar for anti-social behaviour. FOS not interested. FCA not interested.

Just as with local policing where many communities have had to get together and do it themselves using their own resources and to pay through the nose to private companies just to maintain a level of simple but effective security in particular areas, perhaps we need something totally different in the financial services industry. For me, as with Moneybox' Paul Lewis, it is long past time to scrap the label "Financial Adviser". The current bunch think they are kings of all they survey and that it is their garden and all is lovely within it. Sorry - not impressed:

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/paul-lewis-time-to-scrap-the-financial-adviser-label/

What is the point of any of these people as seen performing on MSE? They strut about like peacocks brought in to decorate the forum and make those weird calls, and when they are with their public, they can't be criticised unless they are actually caught and banged-up.

How are we supposed to make a decision about trusting one with anything?

Look how they wriggle in defensive huddles even for the slightest criticisms of dubious methods of some among them.

What do they know that has any longevity other than an obvious ability to transfer some of your cash into their pots? Question always is for what - providing a market restricted form of gabbing further restricted by their woeful ..., well what? Are knowledge and integrity the words I am looking for?

If the poster seriously does think that the IFA wasn't very good then the best thing to do would be to name that IFA and just say so here - same as you would with Kwik-Fit or anyone else with a garage hoist who tried to slip one through.

gadgetmind

bowlhead99 wrote: »

BUT - if those people had never gone ahead and paid to buy any PPI, they couldn't possibly have been mis-SOLD the product

Perhaps, but a large number of PPI claims failed for the simple fact that people had simply never bought it, and many more failed because people HAD bought it but had then also successfully claimed on it!

Some people just seem to like compensation.

magpiecottage

agarnett is a troll with an "agenda" that all financial advisers are scum. It is a bit like the Nazis view of the Jews but fortunately, unlike the Nazis, agarnett can be safely ignored

The fact is that speciality went to see a financial adviser. They do not recall being told how much they would be charged for the adviser's services.

FCA rule COBS 2.2.1 R says

"(1) A firm must provide appropriate information in a comprehensible form to a client about:

(a) the firm and its services;
(b) designated investments and proposed investment strategies;
including appropriate guidance on and warnings of the risks
associated with investments in those designated investments or
in respect of particular investment strategies
(c) execution venues; and
(d) costs and associated charges;

so that the client is reasonably able to understand the nature and risks of the service and of the specific type of designated investment that is being offered and, consequently, to take investment decisions on an informed basis.
(2) That information may be provided in a standardised format."

If a business fails to say what the service will cost, then it clearly cannot charge. So, for the service provided to date, the business can charge nothing.

Therefore in the event of a complaint about the cost of the service to date, the redress will be the charges to date (£0.00) minus the charges agreed (£0.00).

This comes to a total of £0.00 minus £0.00 = £0.00

With regard to future services, a business has the right to vary its charges from time to time, provided it gives consumers proper notice of the change so that they can make an informed decision whether or not to change.

speciality has been given notice that, henceforth, they will be charged for services on the basis quoted. They have made an informed decision not to contract for those services.

This the second allegation on misnonselling I have seen on this forum in as many weeks. Perhaps it is an indication of where the compensation culture is now going.

jem16

gadgetmind wrote: »

Some people just seem to like compensation.

To me this is the most telling statement by specialiity.

specialiity wrote: »

It appears that with the cost deducted the new pension with LV is still a cheaper option, but I don't want to pay the fee.

So even though speciality knows the advice was correct and will save money even with paying the IFA, s/he wants to find a way of taking the advice without paying.

I really cannot believe that someone looks for advice from an IFA and expects it to be free. Who else works for nothing?

bmm78

magpiecottage wrote: »

This the second allegation on misnonselling I have seen on this forum in as many weeks. Perhaps it is an indication of where the compensation culture is now going.

Seems to be the case. The last two complaints I've handled have been spurious, with blatant lies on behalf of the complainant.

There has been a noticeable shift in recent years from people "making a complaint" to people "making a claim". It's a subtle but important distinction, where people are prompted by the end goal (compensation) rather than unhappiness with a product/service.

PPI has also created unrealistic expectations, with mis-sales by default and little burden of proof on the complainant.

Unfortunately the current FOS system does little to deter chancers from giving it a go. This is to the detriment of everyone - with more resource and a smaller volume of cases, FOS could provide a better and more efficient service to both regulated firms and the public.

DaveMcG

@agarnett a couple of points

COMPS in the 80s 90s generally paid single premium commission, so there should have been none of the high charges that were prevalent at the time.

S32s between 88-95 would have been checked for mis-selling under the Pension Review. Post 95 would have been governed by the tighter compliance procedures put in place.

agarnett

Thanks Dave but not sure what these points relate to or are asserting:

You mention 'COMPS' - I imagine you mean COM Pension Scheme but I don't know what the COM means (company / company occupational ?). Was COMPS a forerunner of S32 perhaps? Sorry if this is simply use of jargon that I am not aware of ...

I can ask this one from the point of general knowledge however: What does "governed by the tighter compliance procedures put in place" actually mean in practice?

You have referred also to commission paid on COMPS in 80s 90s as "single premium commission" - I can appreciate that S32 policies usually start as single premium policies, but what point are you making? Single premium commission versus something else perhaps? Not sure why single premium commission (whatever is meant by that) would mean no high charges (whatever is meant by high charges in this context - high IFA fees perhaps?).

Apologies if this means I am being overly dense i.r.o. your post ...

DaveMcG

You appeared to blame short term high commission salesmen for issues in the 89s/90s. I was pointing out that initial commission wasn't high in contracted out money purchase schemes (employers' schemes) and was on an annual single premium basis. So spread out over the contract and with no significant penalties for transfer.

You also questioned mis-selling of S32s. That was addressed by the SIB review and post 95 transfers had to be signed off by a qualified person with analysis on file.

On the wider money purchase contracting out issue, there are many who will gain from contracting out as a result of the new state pension. They will still have enough years to build up to the full level and will benefit from that and their money purchase funds. Those who did not contract out will either reach the ceiling faster or see the excess indexed in an inferior manner.

So there really does not appear to be a significant issue regarding contracting out either via personal pension or money purchase scheme.

In hindsight the general level of charges and commissions on insurance products was too high in the 80s and 90s imo. Probably because no one cared to consider what would happen if inflation and interest rates fell. Did that low growth risk rest to heavily on the policyholder? Perhaps, but I think that the spotlight is very much on these plans and there possibly will be some compromises under government pressure.

gadgetmind

DaveMcG wrote: »

On the wider money purchase contracting out issue, there are many who will gain from contracting out as a result of the new state pension. They will still have enough years to build up to the full level and will benefit from that and their money purchase funds.

My wife and myself have *very* different work histories, but are both in the position where we'll get full single tier plus have pots now worth 6 digits thanks to contracting out. (Now all merged with the fading of Protected Rights, but £58k in March 2011, so £100k+ a fairly comfortable projection.)

We contracted out with SJP, so fees left, right and centre, but still a very good move.

agarnett

DaveMcG wrote:

You appeared to blame short term high commission salesmen for issues in the 89s/90s. I was pointing out that initial commission wasn't high in contracted out money purchase schemes (employers' schemes) and was on an annual single premium basis. So spread out over the contract and with no significant penalties for transfer.

Not in my case with a major provider. What is the basis for your assertion?

You also questioned mis-selling of S32s. That was addressed by the SIB review and post 95 transfers had to be signed off by a qualified person with analysis on file.

Pardon? Nothing was addressed that prevented the provider doing what it liked (and continuing to do what it likes) with an S32 sold to me as a default option in 2003/4. Again I can't accept an assertion which conflicts with my own experience so what's your point? I've still got the papers which show that my 1989 COMPS (thanks for the reminder on that little jargon item ) which was rejigged by the employer with the same provider in 1991 was depleted significantly by being made "paid-up" after another 18 months. T&Cs I was told - significant upfront costs - like it or lump it.

You might be basing your opinion on one part of the marketplace. It certainly doesn't seem to properly describe the parts which provided my pension products of the age.