final salary pension scheme

Malthusian

Spam peddling unregulated offshore investments reported.

xylophone wrote: »

Does giving a receipt make him liable?

Yes. Perhaps not "liable" in a moral or legal sense but this is not a moral or legal question, this is a regulatory question. See my post 61 above. The IFA is still Complaint Muggins Number 1. The transfer would not have happened if the IFA hadn't taken a significant fee from the client and given him his letter or receipt or whatever in return. Therefore the IFA is to blame.

You might say "but that's nonsense" and from a moral point of view you're right. But this is a regulatory question, not a moral one. Morally the punter is to blame. But the punter isn't going to complain against himself to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The FOS has repeatedly taken the view - including in the case I quoted above - that even if an adviser recommended a client not to do something, they are still to blame if they allowed him to do it. (And by giving him the letter he needs to get past the "safeguarded benefits" rules they are doing exactly that.) The FOS has taken the view that if the client had understood the implications of what they were doing, they wouldn't have done it, therefore the IFA is to blame for not doing enough to dissuade them.

dunstonh

Just got an email from a provider that says:
Insistent customers

We will not accept transfers against your advice where the transfer is from a Defined Benefit scheme or a Defined Contribution Scheme which has safeguarded benefits.
----

That is not an uncommon position. So, its not just advisers that are being on guard. Providers are too.

Brogden

dunstonh wrote: »

Just got an email from a provider that says:
Insistent customers

We will not accept transfers against your advice where the transfer is from a Defined Benefit scheme or a Defined Contribution Scheme which has safeguarded benefits.
----

That is not an uncommon position. So, its not just advisers that are being on guard. Providers are too.

I understand there are quite a few providers who are taking that stance.

I also understand the onus is on the trustees of the transferring scheme to be satisfied that the individual has received advice and to decide themselves what or how much proof they want to be satisfied they are doing the 'right' thing.

I put the word 'right' in inverted commas to keep you happy Dunston I don't like to offend .

For myself.....I am wholly against this belt and braces 'fear' check that some providers are doing. Put on the spot they would be unable to reasonably explain their reasons for this as they are free to accept the transfer if the trustees pass it to them. It is the trustees who should be living in fear but they may be a little too mature and 'sorted out' for that.

For years and years advisers have berated providers (insurers / fund managers / platforms etc) for not standing up to the regulator and simply acquiescing, grovelling and making life hard for everybody by 'over-complying' in an effort to impress, win brownie points and keep the businesses intact for the purposes of personal profit / bonus / pensions.

If you or I sneezed the providers would hide under a stone in fear. Whilst a lot has changed in the financial services markets some cultures and behaviours remain intact.

Ooooooh.......must calm down now

Ganga

After reading the article in Malthusian,s post # 51 you can not blame any institutian wether IFA,s Trustees,Providers etc from touching one of these DC schemes with the longest bargepole on the planet.After the condensed version of it is.

TAKE ADVICE - IGNORE IT - WASTE THE MONEY -COMPLAIN -GET MONEY BACK OFF THE PEOPLE WHO WARNED YOU NOT TO TAKE IT!
where will the sue someone culture take us next.

bigadaj

I can see the various arguments, but surely one of the basic points is that people signed up for a defined benefit. This meant that if they worked for a company and contributed an amount, from nothing many years ago, to what could be a substantial personal contribution more recently, they would get a pension paid as a sum per week, month etc

The change in legislation may allow people to transfer this into an immediate lump sum but that up isn't really what the original contract provided for, and the bizarre economic circumstances that we now find ourselves in with gilt yields and life expectancy makes this look like a windfall that individuals are desperate to get their hands on.

What's wrong with just taking the pension that you originally signed up for and which in all probability for the majority of the population provides the best outcome for the average employee?

Turbinedave

Just for balance , I transferred from a DB scheme to a sipp drawdown . I am in poor health with no spouse and wanted my fund to go to kids in the event of my demise . The IFA was Hargreaves Lansdown and my CETV was approx 500K , I purchased a level annuity for 12K per year and put the remaining cash in to a mixture of income funds to draw the natural yield .

Time will tell if this was prudent but I have no regrets so far ( took 125k TFLS and paid off mortgage too )

RickyB2000

Ganga wrote: »

After reading the article in Malthusian,s post # 51 you can not blame any institutian wether IFA,s Trustees,Providers etc from touching one of these DC schemes with the longest bargepole on the planet.After the condensed version of it is.

TAKE ADVICE - IGNORE IT - WASTE THE MONEY -COMPLAIN -GET MONEY BACK OFF THE PEOPLE WHO WARNED YOU NOT TO TAKE IT!
where will the sue someone culture take us next.

But in that example, wasn't it because the same IFA went ahead and processed the transaction even though they said it wasn't a good idea. I wonder what would have happened if someone else had completed the transaction based on the fact the person had advice not to continue? Who would be to blame then?

It appears to then come down to whether the advice was full and clear based on that ruling. Any gap in the explanation of the advice and you could be held liable - so just saying I don't recommend may not be good enough.

Brogden

Turbinedave wrote: »

Just for balance , I transferred from a DB scheme to a sipp drawdown . I am in poor health with no spouse and wanted my fund to go to kids in the event of my demise . The IFA was Hargreaves Lansdown and my CETV was approx 500K , I purchased a level annuity for 12K per year and put the remaining cash in to a mixture of income funds to draw the natural yield .

Time will tell if this was prudent but I have no regrets so far ( took 125k TFLS and paid off mortgage too )

Turbine Dave - I wish you and the kids well and am sorry for any heath problem you may have but I am sure you will be enjoying the natural yield for years and years to come.

I have my own family circumstances too. I do hope that with the advice Turbine and I have taken and decisions made that there are no 'alarm bells ringing around here?' I think it would be quite wrong if there were.

Every case needs to be judged on its merits.

dunstonh

Turbinedave wrote: »

Just for balance , I transferred from a DB scheme to a sipp drawdown . I am in poor health with no spouse and wanted my fund to go to kids in the event of my demise . The IFA was Hargreaves Lansdown and my CETV was approx 500K , I purchased a level annuity for 12K per year and put the remaining cash in to a mixture of income funds to draw the natural yield .

Time will tell if this was prudent but I have no regrets so far ( took 125k TFLS and paid off mortgage too )

Ill health is a common justification that works a lot of the time. it is one of the easier ways to get a case through.

Turbinedave

Thank you for the kind words Brogden . As stated DB pension are gold plated and transfer is only advisable in certain cases as DunstonH states , now then where's that Ferrari dealer ��