Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

persistancepaysoff

Yet I received nothing from Aviva explaining any pension review at the time.... I would have read and kept them in my folders ... I would think that anyone like myself who was self employed was far too busy working their buts off to earn a decent crust, so would not have heard or even know about it...

I also never had anyone contact me to review my Policy and it's sale.
It seems again this was very hit and miss and no-one was monitoring that reviews actually took place on all policies. Insurance industry managing itself leaves a lot to be desired!!

dunstonh

towag wrote: »

That's exactly what I expected from an IFA... Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.... Maybe that is why the whole industry needs to be cleaned up by people like yourself if you are so damned?...
Is it likely?.... I don't think so....

I dont see much wrong with the industry at the moment to be honest. It is in a fairly good state with very few issues other then over regulation in areas of micromanagement.

I also never had anyone contact me to review my Policy and it's sale.
It seems again this was very hit and miss and no-one was monitoring that reviews actually took place on all policies. Insurance industry managing itself leaves a lot to be desired!!

It wasnt managed by itself. It was managed by the regulator and outcomes monitored by the regulator. It was criteria based. So, maybe you didnt meet the criteria that required further info to be obtained. Your files may have contained everything necessary without the need to obtain more info from you.

waterstar

Like towag, tempus_fugit and and persistancepaysoff, I join the list of those not contacted regarding a review regarding a s32 transfer from 1988.

I have a s32 scheme relating to when I was employed in a business within one of the major high street banks. I received advice from a specialised advisory arm of a business within the same high street banking group, in summary the advice states “we have now received details of the transfer value....we have obtained quotes from Norwich Union and [one other insurance company] with regard to the benefits of transferring out....... the bank scheme is based on a pension at age 60 of approximately £X.... NU estimate that they would provide a fund of £Z at age 60 which would provide a pension at current rates of £Y... the NU illustration is based on the current bonus rates being declared...... It would seem sensible that you should opt for the transfer value.”

DaveMcG wrote: »

A transfer only plan wouldn't necessarily have received a questionnaire. It could have been reviewed from file information. Your policy would have been reviewed in a second phase for those under age 50 at time of transfer, around 1999/2000 or so.

There is a possibility that due to the guarantees with the fixed GMP revaluation the policy would have been projected to provide benefits of greater value than had it been left with the original scheme. This would have meant that no redress was due.

What was the deferred pension amount transferred from the scheme? Multiplying it by 1.025 for each year until your 60th birthday will give you a very very rough* idea of what would have been available from the scheme at that age. You can then compare that with what the s32 pension was at that age.

I am struggling to understand the test in the second paragraph above in a case, as mine, where the original scheme provided revaluation as follows (figures rounded)

Accrued pension (per annum) at date of leaving £3k, GMP element £400, escalating element £2.6k. Payable at age 60.

Increases for deferred pensions: GMP at 8.5%, Escalating element at lower of RPI and 5%.

It seems to me that the GMP elements of each of the s32 and the original scheme would have been the same at the date of a review around about 2000?

towag

FCA research: consumers do not trust 'expensive' IFAs
By William Robins 11 Dec, 2014
64Comments
Consumers think IFAs are too expensive and cannot be trusted, according to research into retirement market behaviours carried out on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
A report on consumer behaviours around retirement decision making, commissioned by the FCA as part of its retirement income thematic review published today, found that consumers are unwilling to pay fees for advice and do not think advisers have their best interests at heart.
It said consumers had no way of comparing the quality of one adviser to another or telling whether the advice they had received was good quality or not.
The report, by Ignition House, said: ‘Pre-retirement respondents without an IFA commonly reported a strong mistrust of financial advisers based on poor past experience. Some respondents were under the impression that IFAs were paid by commission and felt that IFAs might not always work in their best interests.
‘They were surprised to hear that pension advice in the post retail distribution review environment would be paid for through an explicit fee and that this could cost them excess of £1,000. Knowing this reinforced their thinking that it is their responsibility to find out about their at retirement choices.’
The report said a ‘small minority’ of clients, usually self-employed, who had used an IFA in the past would consider going back for more help, but were also concerned advice costs were ‘prohibitively expensive’.
Some respondents said they had used an IFA to help them with a ‘life changing decision’. However the report said that ‘when probed’ they were not sure they had received good advice.
‘When probed, these responds were not entirely sure whether they had found a "good IFA” or not – or indeed how they could judge this. Nevertheless they took what was recommended at face value and did not seek further validation since the IFAs “expertise” was what they paid for.’
It said consumers did not know where to go for trusted advice.
‘[They are] are unsure how to judge any advice they are given as there are no visible measures they can use to assess the quality of one adviser versus another.’
It said lack of advice at retirement had negative consequences for consumers, who normally ended up taking the maximum tax free cash available and buying a level annuity.

towag

persistancepaysoff wrote: »

I also never had anyone contact me to review my Policy and it's sale.
It seems again this was very hit and miss and no-one was monitoring that reviews actually took place on all policies. Insurance industry managing itself leaves a lot to be desired!!

I have come to the conclusion that the whole industry IS legalised gambling, borrowing other people's money to do it... Like all bad losers it doesn't care about the trust we put into these insurance and pension giants.... Only what they will lose in peanuts (to them) when they have to pay back what was originally owed and legally agreed upon...

dunstonh

towag wrote: »

FCA research: consumers do not trust 'expensive' IFAs
By William Robins 11 Dec, 2014
64Comments
Consumers think IFAs are too expensive and cannot be trusted, according to research into retirement market behaviours carried out on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
A report on consumer behaviours around retirement decision making, commissioned by the FCA as part of its retirement income thematic review published today, found that consumers are unwilling to pay fees for advice and do not think advisers have their best interests at heart.
It said consumers had no way of comparing the quality of one adviser to another or telling whether the advice they had received was good quality or not.
The report, by Ignition House, said: ‘Pre-retirement respondents without an IFA commonly reported a strong mistrust of financial advisers based on poor past experience. Some respondents were under the impression that IFAs were paid by commission and felt that IFAs might not always work in their best interests.
‘They were surprised to hear that pension advice in the post retail distribution review environment would be paid for through an explicit fee and that this could cost them excess of £1,000. Knowing this reinforced their thinking that it is their responsibility to find out about their at retirement choices.’
The report said a ‘small minority’ of clients, usually self-employed, who had used an IFA in the past would consider going back for more help, but were also concerned advice costs were ‘prohibitively expensive’.
Some respondents said they had used an IFA to help them with a ‘life changing decision’. However the report said that ‘when probed’ they were not sure they had received good advice.
‘When probed, these responds were not entirely sure whether they had found a "good IFA” or not – or indeed how they could judge this. Nevertheless they took what was recommended at face value and did not seek further validation since the IFAs “expertise” was what they paid for.’
It said consumers did not know where to go for trusted advice.
‘[They are] are unsure how to judge any advice they are given as there are no visible measures they can use to assess the quality of one adviser versus another.’
It said lack of advice at retirement had negative consequences for consumers, who normally ended up taking the maximum tax free cash available and buying a level annuity.

Which tells us absolutely nothing. It just plays to the Daily Mail style of no facts but lets have an opinion anyway style person.

It is pretty daft as it is mainly opinions of people that havent used IFAs. Research has shown that over half of people using insurance agents thought they were using an IFA. Plus, most of those didnt know what an IFA was and the differences between an FA, tied agent/sales rep and an IFA.

towag

dunstonh wrote: »

Which tells us absolutely nothing. It just plays to the Daily Mail style of no facts but lets have an opinion anyway style person.

It is pretty daft as it is mainly opinions of people that havent used IFAs. Research has shown that over half of people using insurance agents thought they were using an IFA. Plus, most of those didnt know what an IFA was and the differences between an FA, tied agent/sales rep and an IFA.

Wasn't in the Daily Mail style.... it was by the Financial Conduct Authority.... :
FCA research: consumers do not trust 'expensive' IFAs
By William Robins 11 Dec, 2014

And by what you have argued goes to relatively show what an incredible mess the whole industry is in including the IFA fraternity..... Independent or not.... :cool:

Then again I suppose you would take umbridge as its your line of "work"

Sorry if it offends dunstohn, but there is no smoke without fire as the old adage goes...

dunstonh

towag wrote: »

Wasn't in the Daily Mail style.... it was by the Financial Conduct Authority.... :
FCA research: consumers do not trust 'expensive' IFAs
By William Robins 11 Dec, 2014

And by what you have argued goes to relatively show what an incredible mess the whole industry is in including the IFA fraternity..... Independent or not.... :cool:

Then again I suppose you would take umbridge as its your line of "work"

Sorry if it offends dunstohn, but there is no smoke without fire as the old adage goes...

The people that were asked were not of the type that would normally use IFAs. There was no checking of their historic transactions. They just had an opinion.

I don't give two hoots personally as I have more work than I can deal with and myself and the advisers that work for me all have clients going back 20-30 years with little or no issues. Most of the IFA firms I am in contact with are in much the same situation.

It doesnt really matter what people who would never use IFAs actually think. However, the more the FCA get told advice is expensive, the better as its only expensive because of them.

towag

DaveMcG wrote: »

A transfer only plan wouldn't necessarily have received a questionnaire. It could have been reviewed from file information. Your policy would have been reviewed in a second phase for those under age 50 at time of transfer, around 1999/2000 or so.

There is a possibility that due to the guarantees with the fixed GMP revaluation the policy would have been projected to provide benefits of greater value than had it been left with the original scheme. This would have meant that no redress was due.

What was the deferred pension amount transferred from the scheme? Multiplying it by 1.025 for each year until your 60th birthday will give you a very very rough* idea of what would have been available from the scheme at that age. You can then compare that with what the s32 pension was at that age.


*obviously to do that properly you would need the scheme's revaluation policy and the relevant factors for each year.

Well, without that info I shall, like others, probably never know.... Is that 1.025 compound interest per year or just 1.025? Sorry, but could you be a little more precise? Thanks...

towag

dunstonh wrote: »

The people that were asked were not of the type that would normally use IFAs. There was no checking of their historic transactions. They just had an opinion.

I don't give two hoots personally as I have more work than I can deal with and myself and the advisers that work for me all have clients going back 20-30 years with little or no issues. Most of the IFA firms I am in contact with are in much the same situation.

It doesnt really matter what people who would never use IFAs actually think. However, the more the FCA get told advice is expensive, the better as its only expensive because of them.

Yes, but I give two hoots as I'm sure many others do..... Maybe its just those who cant afford IFA's that are reported....? Or those that have used an IFA, but were to proud or embarrassed by the fee to say otherwise and felt ripped off afterwards and didn't want the hassle of going through the rigmorale of complaining that they had been? S'funny how these things never come up, such is the way of the ignorance of people who just don't know, so have to trust an IFA whether they like it or not.
So what exactly what would your fees be then?.... Fixed on a percentage of the sum to be invested? And what would that be? I'm always intrigued as to why IFA's never ever reveal their charges on their websites etc... Is that because they would sound prohibitive? Come on, I'm sure that most here would love to know...!!!
But I would bet you won't answer that as it would be against the principles of the "industry" or some kind of other excuse not to reveal that....
I'm sorry dunstonh, but your two hoots kind of attitude is probably WHY millions of hard working people like me don't trust IFA's....