SERPS refund

honizz

Ah, the forum rules, yes I know, I read it..

Damn, I just finished editing this and pressed the wrong button again.

Dunstonh, yes, I did get a letter from them. I looked them up online and thought they looked really dodgy, FSA fines left right and centre.

Then on the Monday I callled my adviser, he wasn't in, but another adviser said, send the paperwork back, he made it clear it was my choice of whether to have a review or not. I was more than happy so I ticked not to have one. Then recently I had a letter from Sesame saying the review is over and everything is ok! So I called them and they couldn't find my form I signed and had done the review anyway. I asked them why but they didn't know.

But they confirmed everything was suitable which is great. I did email my adviser and told them what happened. I think his response was, typical Sesame..

Right which is the right button to press?

magpiecottage

honizz wrote: »

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.

I had a case from a CMC in London where the adviser had no surviving record. I argued that, on the balance of probability, if properly presented at point of sale, the customer would have contracted out of SERPS.

The CMC disagreed and went to FOS. FOS agreed with me.

It is possible that there was something that would have caused the plan to be considered a missale (typically passing the pivotal age) but I agree with dunstonh. You seem to have got lucky in that nobody bothered to fight it.

However, FOS, the FCA and the Claims Regulator all agree that you would have got the same outcome at no cost if you had done it yourself.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Your mis-sale complaint would have used a template letter
and used the same reasons for everyone.

Such a template may, or may not, be true. I have seen a few complaints where they are clearly bespoke but I have seen more that are templates because they contradict themselves and/or make assertions which are clearly not applicable.

The most blatant was earlier this year when I saw one which claimed both that a consumer had been denied the chance to shop around for a better annuity rate but that they had moved to another company on retirement and lost out on a guaranteed annuity rate. In other words, they both transferred and didn't transfer at the same time.

FOS has published a number of decisions (not necessarily pensions) in which an ombudsman has observed that a claims company has made statements which cannot both be true.

If that happens, then immediately the complainant is on the back foot. They need to show that their assertions are more likely than not - and not merely equally likely - to be true. Yet the ombudsman knows that they do not always tell the truth because the evidence is before his eyes.

It is also more difficult for a CMC to explain this away as a mistake. If you do it yourself then, as a lay person, it is reasonable to suppose you might confuse yourself. The CMC holds itself out as an expert in these matters, though.

dunstonh wrote: »

By the way, how much commission did they take on the pension transfer they did for you?

This is a good question. Fortunately nowadays there is no commission but there are still adviser charges and these can still be taken from the fund. Before committing to any financial advice, make sure you know what will be charged, who by, what for and when.