Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

WBCPB

towag wrote: »

After the mounting controversy of a growing number of Aviva section 32 holders now being paid out from the age of 60, as was originally intended and expected, with the possibly of yet more to come (once this all gets out) and the word spreads.

Is this documented anywhere apart from on here? Must say it was quite exhilarating reading the determination and seeing Aviva attempting to wriggle out of their commitments.


Regards

towag

WBCPB wrote: »

Is this documented anywhere apart from on here? Must say it was quite exhilarating reading the determination and seeing Aviva attempting to wriggle out of their commitments.


Regards

Aviva phoned me yesterday and the gist was that Anthony Harris's determination being upheld have changed Aviva's attitude and actions.... More to come when I get the paperwork from Aviva... I suspect they are going to pay all those with policies that do NOT state that Aviva can opt out by saying "no obligation" stating a policy condition which was determined wrong by the POS. That being IF policy holders make the complaint required to put it in motion.... I also suspect that the GMP's with an escalation rate will stay flat even though a policy will quite clearly state that there will be an annual escalation rate to be paid.... So Aviva will do their best to wriggle out of that one too... Of that I have no doubt.... We shall see in due course as I don't think it will end here....

WBCPB

towag wrote: »

More to come when I get the paperwork from Aviva... I suspect they are going to pay all those with policies that do NOT state that Aviva can opt out by saying "no obligation" stating a policy condition which was determined wrong by the POS.

Please keep this thread updated if you are able after receiving your paperwork,which policy condition was determined wrong,do they not have to abide by the decision unless they successfully appeal it in court?

Regards

towag

WBCPB wrote: »

Please keep this thread updated if you are able after receiving your paperwork,which policy condition was determined wrong,do they not have to abide by the decision unless they successfully appeal it in court?

Regards

I won't be accepting or signing anything from Aviva until all the agreements originally and contractually made by Norwich Union and Aviva's takeover and responsibility are properly fulfilled as per my policy... In my case and Anthony Harris's they cited policy condition 7 as no obligation to pay a pension at the benefit date if the fund is in their interpretation "insufficient", regardless of what you have in your fund as its relevant in proportion to your initial transfer amount... I suspect they use this cop out no matter what size your fund actually is because what they would have to pay out is also relevant to those policies....So they will use the same tactic of "insufficient funds" by agreeing to pay the amount from age 60 increasing annually till GMP, but will not pay out any escalation percentage rate from GMP onward. This is wrong because what Aviva fail to realise is, or do not care about, is by being contracted out for any number of years with their original pension provider and transferring to their NU S32 pension provision, either through redundancy or other reasons, means those same policy holders get a reduced State Pension (SP), the shortfall in SP was meant to be more than made up and safeguarded by these pension policies as in any other government or other pension that made it possible to pay a lower NI contribution rate and were contracted out. They were also encouraged....
In other words (As I would hazard a good guess).... Another Aviva cop out of "insufficient funds" regardless of how the policy is written......Now to be further challenged, probably via the POS ......

towag

WBCPB wrote: »

So has nothing changed since the upheld complaint from Mr Harris,i would imagine that many other policyholders across all providers would have exactly the same documents with the "one sentence missing",maybe a class action to the Pensions Ombudsman would sort this injustice once and for all?

Regards

I think now it has, but its taken a while for it to filter through. Aviva have now acknowledged that the POS determination for Anthony Harris should now apply to all those who have these NU S32 policies.... IF they write in to apply or complain!!.... I hope that will not be the case and Aviva will do the ethical and moral act of writing to all their NU S32 policy holders to give them the good news. The only problem now is to determine what will happen about the EPR's. If there is any redress, bearing in mind that all those who contracted out of SERPS will have, according to the years contracted out, a reduced old state pension before 6th April (just passed) and a reduced new state pension. In either case the EPR's were supposed to counter the loss or shortfall that has occurred. The DWP will say that it is in the new state pension with the 2.5% annual increase. which is lower than 3% and the 5% originally contracted in the policies. Aviva will say, by their interpretation, the state is now responsible for GMP EPR's at SPA, pre and post '88.
Either way its going to be another fight to get this straightened out....

xylophone

You need to remember though that even under the old system, if the COD (basically the revalued pre 97 GMP) had been revalued by Fixed Rate in deferment, it was often far higher than the Notional ASP ( what the person would have earned had he stayed contracted in) so that the person saw no increase through State Pension on pre 88 GMP or anything above the up to 3% paid through the scheme on post 88 GMP for a number of years (if ever).

towag

xylophone wrote: »

You need to remember though that even under the old system, if the COD (basically the revalued pre 97 GMP) had been revalued by Fixed Rate in deferment, it was often far higher than the Notional ASP ( what the person would have earned had he stayed contracted in) so that the person saw no increase through State Pension on pre 88 GMP or anything above the up to 3% paid through the scheme on post 88 GMP for a number of years (if ever).

Before I answer that please define COD and Notional ASP?.... When I understand what that means, I can then hope to answer or comment on your notion on what you have said.... I'm still on a learning curve when it comes to abbreviation on pension jargon... Thanks....

xylophone

COD means Contracted Out Deduction.

Notional Additional State Pension was the DWP's calculation of what the person would have built up in SERPS pre 97 had he remained in the State Scheme.

towag

xylophone wrote: »

COD means Contracted Out Deduction.

Notional Additional State Pension was the DWP's calculation of what the person would have built up in SERPS pre 97 had he remained in the State Scheme.

But had that person stayed in SERPS. IE self employed or non pensioned employment and took out a private pension to make up for the inadequate old state pension, would they have been better off?
The point I'm trying to make is that those who were contracted out for any number of years will be hit just the same as if the old system was still in place. The problem is these S32 policies are now nowhere near as good as an occupational pension taken to its conclusion. Aviva say they haven't performed well enough to pay out what they thought they would make so all these policy holders have in effect been "hit" twice. The Aviva With Profit Guaranteed NU Pension fund holds £39000,000,000 so I would assume that is where these NU S32 pensions would be paid from. as its an ongoing fund.
I'm sticking to the wording of the policy and the discrepancies the New State Pension that Aviva and their "interpretations"will take advantage of by refusing to pay out the EPR's... They were found to be wrong on deferring payouts to SPA, so it could be that they have followed suit on their latest ploy to wriggle out of the EPR liability to... I have a hunch that this might be the case so the only way to find out is to challenge it. First to Aviva, failing that, the POS and Ross Altman, who I will explain to in more detail the discrepancies that have arisen and how its affected me quite considerably and probably a few thousand others to.... Whether Aviva will do the right thing by writing to ALL the NU S32 holders is yet to be seen, but I will hazard a guess that they wont be...Unless you contact them.... :cool::D

agarnett

Power to your elbow, towag!

That £39BILLION figure is enormous, isn't it?

Do we know the values of the other WP funds Aviva control?

Was your particular fund affected by the 2009 Reattribution fiasco overseen by Claire Spottiswoode i.e. have bribes been offered to the policyholder base (and taken by the majority) in exchange for giving up their rights to inherited estate within your fund?

In the case of my Aviva S32 fund - albeit a policy issued by NU in 2003/4 - they offered a bribe of £900 in 2009 which naturally as someone with inside knowledge of typical late second and early third millennium financial services industry shenanigans I refused. That refusal apparently, as of February 2015, entitles me currently to an enhancement to final bonus of some five thousand pounds (not guaranteed unless I take it of course and give up my GMP rights!)

If I had taken the bribe like most, where would that enhancement be now - still in the fund for the benefit of shareholders not policyholders, or creamed off and invested in your fund perhaps?

My point is, the true size, workings and inter-relationships of these WP funds is secret and is very obviously manipulated, propagandised and now so many have been garnered about them, jealously guarded as Aviva's raison d'être.

My own tentative discussions with PAS & POS & FOS indicate that their staff are oblivious to the history of it, and even Treasury Select Committee have over the years only scratched the surface with their inquiries. That summary contains a broken link but the 2008 report can be found here. These funds are seen by those to whom they are entrusted as their own private pig troughs, whereas the truth is that what's in them is more than 90% ours (the policyholders'). Aviva and the likes have been constantly redefining ownership, largely unchallenged, ever since they brought so many traditional funds from the likes of NU, CU, Morley (a major private sector DB fund manager) and GA together under the weirdly named Aviva banner, especially by those in the industry who receive the news of changes first, and who do know better but choose to keep their heads down. I bet there is some "in plain sight in joke" about what Aviva really means, and you can bet your bottom dollar it never meant "we can be trusted by WP policyholders".

Meantime, a generation of equally oblivious or uncaring FAs have been feeding on the slops at the trough, and prepared to repeat the propoganda to maintain a place for their snouts.

NB All so called IFAs started as tied and restricted in knowledge and products to sell. Many have not moved on much further other than to exploit grandfathering rights to becoming authorised as the latest style of "advisor", and gather together under the protection of membership of networks to keep them kings of their little castles. They would have you believe they are some kind of super-intelligencia keeping their skills honed by CPD, but remind them of their lowly beginnings, and ask why if so clever they never became rocket scientists or engineers or even plumbers originally, they soon pipe down till you've gone. They are all in league in various ways with the biggest players like Aviva. They'd have no business if they couldn't get Aviva to feed them promptly on demand with the standard industry info they ply as "experts". So it is perhaps no wonder that you'll rarely hear a bad word about Aviva from anyone still relying on the industry for a living.

Make no mistake, Aviva is just as nasty as Koch Brothers and will admit nothing unless forced, will seek to claim limitation deadlines at every turn to avoid dealing with claims, doesn't give a toss about policyholder expectations, even those who will die complaining, and will brazenly move on and continue to lobby for laws and practices that separate the gullible and vulnerable from their expectations (which unfortunately is most of us!). That is, unless a few good men stop them in their tracks.

Thank goodness for the likes of Mr. Anthony Harris and Towag. You'd never find any IFA pressing a complaint that hard on a matter of principle and need for change against corrupt practice.