SERPS refund

mellaroo

Has anyone seen anything about SERPS refunds? I opted out fo SERPS for my private pension and saw recently a company offering to take cases as opting out could lose you lots of money. Not sure if this is genuine or just a scam - anyone else seen this or actually got awarded cash?

jem16

mellaroo wrote: »

Has anyone seen anything about SERPS refunds? I opted out fo SERPS for my private pension and saw recently a company offering to take cases as opting out could lose you lots of money.

First of all you didn't opt out of SERPS, you contracted out. So if any claims company used this term you know right way they have no idea what they are talking about.

Secondly most people ( almost all ) who contracted out were correct to do so.

Not sure if this is genuine or just a scam - anyone else seen this or actually got awarded cash?

Keep well away. Claims companies usually make their money from you by transferring your pension.

If you feel you were wrongly advised to contract out then see the adviser who gave you that advice.

I would suggest you read this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5321035

dunstonh

saw recently a company offering to take cases as opting out could lose you lots of money.

Did they also advertise that they have a second company that they use to transfer your pension to another provider and earn from that?

Did they also advertise that the regulator only found a potential failure rate of 1.5% on contracting out?

Did they also advertise that the FOS quarterly complaints stats show between 2-3% of SERPS complaints succeed (the lowest figure of any product type) and not one ombudsman reviewed complaint has resulted in success?

Not sure if this is genuine or just a scam - anyone else seen this or actually got awarded cash?

Once you realise that the complaints stats show a success rate that is the lowest for any financial product type, you have to question the reason why the claims company is doing it. Especially when the majority of claims companies don't go near it given the extremely low chance of success. The reason is they use it a sprat to catch a mackerel. They get all your pension details, put in a template complaint with fake reasons which will fail in the majority of cases. However, at the same time they pass your details to their other company who will tell you to transfer the pension and they earn 5% of your transfer value as a commission/fee. That is where they make their money.

The regulator published a guide and the ombudsman follow that guide in their decisions (along with the minimum income level). The guide shows that if you were under the age of 40/45 at the time of contracting out then you were within the optimal age range. There is a minimum earnings level that varied over the years but broadly speaking, you needed to be earning over £10k a year.

So, were you under 40/45 at the time of contracting out? and were you earning over £10k a year?
Did you want to wait until state pension age before getting the benefits (contracted in) or like the idea of getting them early (from age 55 with contracted out)?
Do you like the idea of getting lump sum access (from contracting out) or prefer to have no lump sum access (contracted in)?
Would you prefer your spouse/civil partner to have better death benefits (contracted out) or lower benefits (contracted in)?

How old are you now? (if in your 40s/50s or younger now then contracting out could have made you a lot of money)

honizz

Hi, not sure what a refund means? But I opted out of Serps. Jem, don't mean to correct you, but in 2005 this was posted

dunstonh wrote: »

Although generally you should opt back into SERPS as it is extremely likely that contracting in will give you slightly higher benefits (as things currently stand).

If you can opt back in, presumably you can opt out. If you contract out, can this also be interpreted as opting out of something? Something and nothing.

Guardian.com said "because they opted out of Serps"

It looks to me both are used and have been used for many years..

Anyway, I believe there are some firms out there who could scam you, as in any walk of life. I used a firm who laid everything out for me. Showed me why my plan had intrinsic issues and helped me sort it out. I was awarded £9000 compensation after a bit of a trek, but my family member who also applied didn't.

There are so many issues with so many things, sometimes its worth getting people who know what they are doing. As I said, in every element of my plan, I was helped and advised, until I understood completely what I was doing. I was told the process. I signed paperwork for the process. I was happy with everything. I wasn't too happy with some people on MSE, but that is a different matter. For your due dilligence I don't think you can rely on an open forum, I tried it and it nearly went pete tong.

The good advice I received from a friend was -
Always deal with a UK based firm for financial matters.
Always make sure the companies are regulated and your money is protected.
Never listen to seuth sayers.
Never take advice from anonymous know it alls, including me
Just found this

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-private-hell-of-pensions-of-the-six-million-who-left-serps-for-the-private-pension-train-more-1432068.html

Good luck Honizz

hyubh

honizz wrote: »

Hi, not sure what a refund means? But I opted out of Serps. Jem, don't mean to correct you, but in 2005 this was posted [...] If you can opt back in, presumably you can opt out.

Contracting out was abolished for DC arrangements in 2012; the only contracting out remaining is DB, where it's the choice of the scheme not the individual member to contract out or not.

If you contract out, can this also be interpreted as opting out of something? Something and nothing.

The mechanism by which someone who is currently 'contracted out' voluntarily contracts in is to opt out of their DB scheme.

Guardian.com said "because they opted out of Serps". It looks to me both are used and have been used for many years.

You could look at things that way with a personal pension back in the day, yes, but that's not the case for contracting out in general, so it's better to be precise.

There are so many issues with so many things, sometimes its worth getting people who know what they are doing

... and using the correct terminology?

jem16

honizz wrote: »

Hi, not sure what a refund means? But I opted out of Serps. Jem, don't mean to correct you, but in 2005 this was posted

dunstonh wrote: »

Although generally you should opt back into SERPS as it is extremely likely that contracting in will give you slightly higher benefits (as things currently stand).

If you can opt back in, presumably you can opt out. If you contract out, can this also be interpreted as opting out of something? Something and nothing.

Guardian.com said "because they opted out of Serps"

People do use "opt out" but wrongly as "opt out" has a very specific meaning in pension terminology.

Opt out = choose not to be in a Defined Benefit scheme.

Contract out = choose not to pay into SERPS/S2P.

Whilst I am perfectly happy that many people do not use the terms correctly, I would expect a proper regulated company to do so.

I used a firm who laid everything out for me. Showed me why my plan had intrinsic issues and helped me sort it out. I was awarded £9000 compensation after a bit of a trek, but my family member who also applied didn't.

I think it's only fair to the OP to make it clear that you were not awarded £9k for being wrongly advised to contract out of SERPS but that the documentation from your advice wasn't good enough.


From an earlier post by honizz;

I checked when I won compensation. I asked the provider why they compensated me because again I was concerned they made a mistake after reading your comments about age's etc and I expected them to take the money back. Verbally they told me the adviser hadn't explained the product fully and that the evidence documented wasn't good enough.

The chances of this happening with the OP are very small. However as a consequence of this claim he might end up paying more for a pension transfer that is neither wanted nor needed.

honizz wrote: »

Never take advice from anonymous know it alls, including me

Absolutely true. Personally I prefer to take advice from regulated advisers and publications from the FCA ( was FSA ) such as this;

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100210151716/moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/pdfs/s2p_wrongly_advised_ink.pdf

Which, incidentally, does back up everything that Dunstonh stated in Post 3. For completeness he has even added in a part about earning over £10k.

So basically if the OP finds that he could be in the small percentage that was missold, he/she should go back to the original adviser that sold him/her the pension and put in a complaint. This will cost absolutely nothing. This of course assumes that an adviser was involved in the first place.

honizz

I do understand that there are various terms, for various things.
Ie
Hoovering and vacuuming. Only one right, both known by 100% of people

Red sauce, ketchup, tomato sauce...

I could go on. I am just pointing out that if I was marketing a product or service, and I have had a little training, using words well known to the largest denominator, usually works better.

I think its fair to say using both terms is ok, in fact using both terms is probably best, in marketing, you catch everyone looking for contracting out and opting out. Incidentally, the very top of the companies website asks "Have you contracted out?"

Another point to note, something which I learnt from MSE.
Lets say, I bought something with a 5 year guarantee. Then 2 years later I try to claim because of a fault but have no paperwork. I lose out because my paperwork was not in order.

My claim for a missold pension was upheld because the paperwork was not in order. I was still awarded compensation on the back of being opted out of Serps. The claim wasn't a missell of bad paperwork, that was the technical fault it fell down on.

Also, lets imagine there was a good paperwork trail. It could have led to the fact that at the time I was suffering from depression and couldn't make an informed decision. Which actually was the reason why I felt I was missold.

This was discussed at the time because we compared my medications to his working knowledge of medications, which at the time was pretty good. He put on his paperwork I was in ill health because of it. I remember this because the misspelt the medicine.

dunstonh

My claim for a missold pension was upheld because the paperwork was not in order. I was still awarded compensation on the back of being opted out of Serps. The claim wasn't a missell of bad paperwork, that was the technical fault it fell down on.

We have said all along that you got lucky. A paperwork issue. Probably missing paperwork as storage of documentation on old cases was not very good with some firms. Quite a lot of cases that were genuinely sold and correct have gone to to produce redress because of admin failures and therefore pay out on a technicality. People didnt complain in the 80s and 90s and client files never saw the light of day again. They were paper records and they didn't get treated well.

Your mis-sale complaint would have used a template letter and used the same reasons for everyone. By the way, how much commission did they take on the pension transfer they did for you? Your complaint template would have said you did not want to any risk. What funds did they put you in after they transferred the pension?

Never take advice from anonymous know it alls, including me

Which is why referring to the facts is important.

1 - Not one complaint referred to an ombudman about contracting out has succeeded (decisions are published - 97 decisions under SERPS since 2012. 12 successful complaints. None about contracting out.
Here is a typical one that was referred to the FOS by someone using a claims company. http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=89120

2 - Only between 2-3% of complaints referred to an adjudicator succeed (although thats anything about SERPS and not just contracting out)
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/126/chart_issue126.pdf

3 - The regulator found a potential failure rate of just 1.5% when it reviewed it.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2007/059.shtml

But you are right. For all we know, you could be a stooge for a claims company pretending to be a successful complainant. Such is the way of the internet. Not an allegation. Just a comment as we have seen all the coverage about fake reviews etc

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

But you are right. For all we know, you could be a stooge for a claims company pretending to be a successful complainant. Such is the way of the internet. Not an allegation. Just a comment as we have seen all the coverage about fake reviews etc

People on MSE with an agenda or a vested interest? Surely not??? The very thought :rotfl:

honizz

Yes I believe I worked it out at just under 2% of the pension pot. As someone on MSE asked previously, may have even been Dunstonh.

I have seen some touting for business on here. I remember years ago as part of my marketing stint, the plan was to post on forums as much as possible to get clients coming to you. Well in 3 years I have posted a handful of times, maybe a few more.

However, if I were touting for business, surely I would in some shape or form, be pointing people in my direction, mentioning names etc. I think you will find, I have tried being helpful recently, look where that got me?

Perhaps I could add a signature telling people what I do, now who do I know who does that???

dunstonh

Perhaps I could add a signature telling people what I do, now who do I know who does that???

It is in the board rules.

Yes I believe I worked it out at just under 2% of the pension pot. As someone on MSE asked previously, may have even been Dunstonh.

Were you recently written to by Sesame telling you that you may have been mis-sold that pension transfer? I believe your transfer may have fallen with the dates of the review.