How do I get my pension in cash

Dark_Sunday

dunstonh wrote: »

And what is the problem with that?

Assuming 2 days @ 8 hrs per day = £225 per hr., but if you do it in 1 day = £450 per hr.

Seems extortionately high, but well done to you when you can manage to charge those hourly rates.

dunstonh

Assuming 2 days @ 8 hrs per day = £225 per hr., but if you do it in 1 day = £450 per hr.

Dont forget the 2-4 weeks wait to get all the information. The interviews over 2-3 visits. And paying the file checker for a couple of hours to verify the file is complete. And the software, paraplanner/office staff etc.

Seems extortionately high

For a higher risk transaction with a high FOS uphold rate with a lifetime liability. I would say it is quite low for a city location. Its more than what I would charge but its not a figure that is outside of the ballpark.

zagfles

EdGasket wrote: »

You just ask your pension provider to do it. If they won't, transfer the pension to a SIPP provider where you are in control. No need for an IFA though some 'old style' pension providers might still insist on it.

They can't insist on advice for transferring away from them. Some will insist on advice if you use them for drawdown, or if you transfer to them, but as I understand it if you want to transfer away there's nothing they can do to stop you. Assuming a normal pension with no guarantees etc.

Dark_Sunday

I'm not sure I agree with lifetime liability on the IFA especially with all the deregulation, freedoms, etc. in recent years "empowering" the individual to make their on choices .

dunstonh

Dark_Sunday wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with lifetime liability on the IFA especially with all the deregulation, freedoms, etc. in recent years "empowering" the individual to make their on choices .

You may not be sure but you are wrong. There is no long stop applied to advice. You can complain about something an adviser did 40 years later if you wanted and they would have to consider the complaint if they were a self employed/partner adviser. There have been cases where spouses of deceased advisers have been chased.

There has been no deregulation in recent years.

Malthusian

Dark_Sunday wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with lifetime liability on the IFA especially with all the deregulation, freedoms, etc. in recent years "empowering" the individual to make their on choices .

Then you probably share the views of most IFAs.

However the government has already been burned once by a grand vision of "breaking the chains" and allowing people to take their money out of company pension schemes as they wished. Google "pension misselling 1990s".

Also bear in mind that George Osborne's idea was in direct contrast to the views of the regulator. Until 18 March 2014, the regulator believed that almost everyone should buy an annuity; that drawdown was a high-risk transaction suitable only for people with more than £100,000 in their pensions, preferably highly financially savvy, with other means of income and with advice. Its solution to the fact that annuities were crap was that pension providers should be made to remind people they could shop around for slightly less crap annuities in a slightly bigger font.

The regulator has been forced to change its tune but it is playing on the same fiddle.

Neither advisers nor the pension industry have any control over where liability sits if someone screws up their life.

(Most IFAs recognise that it is a point of common law that if you advise someone and take money for it you take responsibility if it goes wrong. But most professions have a long stop - e.g. fifteen years for solicitors - beyond which the law says that even if it was the adviser's fault, it's too late to prove it. In financial advice there is no such long stop.)

*edit* DunstonH makes an important point. There has been no deregulation. Existing restrictions and tax rules on when and how you can access pension funds have been changed. No rules have been removed. Regulation has actually increased, e.g. with the requirement to take advice on transferring out of schemes with safeguarded rights. Pre 2014 it was entirely possible to transfer a guaranteed annuity rate policy worth £50,000 to a drawdown plan and forfeit the guarantees without advice, and then you could cash the whole lot in if you had guaranteed pension income over £20k a year. New regulation prohibits that.

zagfles

Malthusian wrote: »

Then you probably share the views of most IFAs.

However the government has already been burned once by a grand vision of "breaking the chains" and allowing people to take their money out of company pension schemes as they wished. Google "pension misselling 1990s".

Yes although the clue is in "misselling", it wasn't the govt that was misselling, it was financial advisers and pension providers. Not that the govt didn't contribute, it did. But financial advisers were getting vast commission for transferring people out of excellent company final salary schemes to rubbish with-profit scheme with no employer contributions.

Mind you it was commonplace back then. Banks and building societies were doing it - by doing a hard sell on endowments whenever anyone wanted a mortgage.

Also bear in mind that George Osborne's idea was in direct contrast to the views of the regulator. Until 18 March 2014, the regulator believed that almost everyone should buy an annuity; that drawdown was a high-risk transaction suitable only for people with more than £100,000 in their pensions, preferably highly financially savvy, with other means of income and with advice. Its solution to the fact that annuities were crap was that pension providers should be made to remind people they could shop around for slightly less crap annuities in a slightly bigger font.

The regulator has been forced to change its tune but it is playing on the same fiddle.

Neither advisers nor the pension industry have any control over where liability sits if someone screws up their life.

(Most IFAs recognise that it is a point of common law that if you advise someone and take money for it you take responsibility if it goes wrong. But most professions have a long stop - e.g. fifteen years for solicitors - beyond which the law says that even if it was the adviser's fault, it's too late to prove it. In financial advice there is no such long stop.)

Right but in the end, from a consumer point of view, who cares? These threads always end up with advisers getting defensive about charges, but from a consumer's point of view, I don't care what the reason for the high charge is, if I don't think the service is worth the price, and I don't have to use the service, then I won't. I'm not interested in the reason for the charge being high.

dunstonh

Right but in the end, from a consumer point of view, who cares? These threads always end up with advisers getting defensive about charges, but from a consumer's point of view, I don't care what the reason for the high charge is, if I don't think the service is worth the price, and I don't have to use the service, then I won't. I'm not interested in the reason for the charge being high.

Understanding why is better than being ignorant. It doesnt mean you have to then buy the service but at least you know why.

The OP was confused about the service he was given a charge for. He thought it was £3k for pressing buttons. Whereas the 3k is for advice. Not pressing of buttons. In reality, all he needs to do is go direct to a provider that caters for those that want to DIY.

That said, it is entirely possible that getting advice will save the OP money. What he wants to do is not tax efficient. The OP said they dont need the money. So, why take it out of the pension? Advice would cover things like that. The advice could save £18k income tax amongst other things. It may save IHT too. So, £3600 is cheap in comparison. (and with a bit of shopping around, could be cheaper)

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

Understanding why is better than being ignorant. It doesnt mean you have to then buy the service but at least you know why.

The OP was confused about the service he was given a charge for. He thought it was £3k for pressing buttons. Whereas the 3k is for advice. Not pressing of buttons. In reality, all he needs to do is go direct to a provider that caters for those that want to DIY.

That said, it is entirely possible that getting advice will save the OP money. What he wants to do is not tax efficient. The OP said they dont need the money. So, why take it out of the pension? Advice would cover things like that. The advice could save £18k income tax amongst other things. It may save IHT too. So, £3600 is cheap in comparison. (and with a bit of shopping around, could be cheaper)

The OP can get that sort of "advice", or perhaps "guidance", by posting here, where people will help him for free. Like atush did, concisely covering the main taxation issues saving the OP perhaps "18k" totally free. Or by phoning pensionwise https://www.pensionwise.gov.uk

No need to pay £3600 for a simple bit of tax advice. The regulars here understand taxation etc as well as any IFA.

PS how did you come to the "£18k income tax" figure?

Linton

zagfles wrote: »

The OP can get that sort of "advice", or perhaps "guidance", by posting here, where people will help him for free. Like atush did, concisely covering the main taxation issues. Oy by phoning pensionwise https://www.pensionwise.gov.uk

No need to pay £3600 for a simple bit of tax advice. The regulars here understand taxation etc as well as any IFA.

If the advice happens to be wrong, possibly because the people here didnt notice what the OP said or ask as deeply as they should have done as to the OPs circumstances, that's tough luck on the OP. There is no liability here so people's advice can be dangerous nonsense. Using an IFA provides a good level of liability coverage.

Of course mostly things are simple and the wide range of responders jointly come up with the right answer. But if you are talking about serious money that is vital to your future you may reasonably consider that isnt good enough.