Why do insurance cos not publish online all pension plan wordings still live in 2017?

agarnett

The question is in the title.

In this world where so much documentation of our entire past lives is digitised easily for current product marketing and identity control purposes, why has no insurance company published online all the pension plan policy booklets it has used over the past 40 years which are still live?

None of these companies could ever have sold such long-term insurance business without being licensed by the government. So why do we tolerate their deliberate obfuscation of what they sold us as long term insurance business?

I am personally appalled at the level of doubt expressed in this forum about the way that original pension policies are supposed to work for unsuspecting individuals, by the complete absence of standard wordings published online by the providers whose actions and responses are being questioned in specific cases, and by the stupid playing along with this by so-called independent financial advisers who if independent should know better

Once upon a time in insurance, staffers used to be trained to write useful letters to customers which to round the subject matter off tidily often said such things as "...subject otherwise to the normal terms conditions and exceptions of our company's standard XYZ pension policy wording" At any time, a copy of the standard XYZ pension policy wording could be freely obtained from the company and ploughed through at your leisure!

I can only believe that the dearth of such wordings online is deliberate policy by the insurance companies to reduce challenges to their actions when it comes to proper advice to planholders approaching their retirement date or thinking of exercising pension freedom rights ... else it might also be to reduce awareness of golden nuggets that are hidden in some standard wordings which could attract publicity in forums like this - e.g. threads like "Guaranteed Annuity Rate 10%plus in ABC Company's XYZ pension plans sold in the 80s - have you got a little goldmine gathering dust in the attic?" would cause insurance companies to have to pay out much more than if it simply let ignorant customers and advisers transfer those policies away and leave the gold behind ...

I may have arrived at the wrong conclusion of course ...

agarnett

I started this thread yesterday after engaging with other threads - one about about a Legal & General case which seems to be missing some important fixed revaluation in deferment, and where seemingly they initially even struggled to confirm the existence of a pension policy, and another about quite remarkable Guaranteed Annuity Rates where the customer was seemingly being advised by a financial adviser of some description, presumably a Pension Transfer Specialist, to transfer the policy, despite it containing a Guaranteed Annuity Rate of 10.6% at age 60. There was a bit more to the story which may mean that particular customer has to consider it a bit further because they are likely to remain a high rate taxpayer for the forseeable, but evenso, one wonders why a GAR like that would be dismissed so easily.

THe particular policy was (is?) invested in what is known by us oldies, far more than by those thirty or more years away from retirement, as a With-Profits fund.

Those policies were typical and sold in thousands by the large insurance company providers in the 70s and 80s.

I have had ongoing problems with one such policy that started life with Equity & Law Life Assurance Society which became part of AXA which got sucked up by Resolution which changed its name to Friends Life which was merged with Aviva and that description doesn't even to begin to list the problems until you delve into why!

Anyway, Aviva have issued £50 and £100 ex gratia cheques like confetti whilst taking an enormous amount of time to deny my real complaints. I've still got those in a drawer somewhere - I didn't ask for them. It's just their way of trying to dodge Anti-Aviva missiles from customers - like so much chaff ...

A lot has passed under the bridge, but let me continue ...

Yesterday after reading about Guaranteed Annuity Rates here on MSE, I suddenly thought "I wonder if I ever had one of those?"

I went back to the very beginning of my file on the Equity & Law arrangement, and lo and behold - a GAR of 8.84% at age 60 appeared on page 38 of a copy of my policy I was given in 1989!

However, nothing of the sort has been mentioned in any documentation since 1989, particularly nothing in my "retirement pack" issued as I am now approaching 60.

So I called Friends Life/AViva, and they denied that there is a GAR. I said I am reading from the policy I was given in 1989. Yes but that is not what it says in the current policy record was the apparently "double-checked" reply. "We will write confirming the current day position on the policy (no GAR)".

"What's the point of that?" I asked. It's wrong. "No its not our administration department have double-checked!"

That didn't surprise me much, because in my experience, most Friends Life / Aviva customer facing representatives including complaints staff are uneducated (in their company's affairs and history) numpties.

Now if Aviva acknowledged openly the wordings they are responsible for I could point to the right one and ask if it is agreed that it is the wording I was sold. But they don't do that, even for their front line staff to be able to refer back to. Instead they rely on very sparse information that has been passed from computer system to computer system through multiple company changes and reorganisations and call what they can see "the truth".

It's bent and crooked to assert such garbage as "the truth" of the contract, isn't it?

Guaranteed annuity rates on With-Profits funded pensions were actually very common in the 70s and 80s. How do I know that? Well partly from FSA and PRS annual returns by the insurance companies themselves where they have regularly admitted it s a solvency risk they have to specially manage! They also tell the PRA what percentage of GAR pension policies surviving to normal retirement date do actually result in GAR being paid. It is not 100%.

I wonder why, bearing in mind that many of the guaranteed annuity rates are double what can now be obtained on the open market?

It is far too easy for purveyors of long-term insurance business to hide behind the passing years if they are not obliged to publish the standard wordings of the contracts they have sold and which are still present in active contracts.

The unnecessary doubt it causes creates much of the mess which arrives in this forum and others like Consumer Action Group and on desks at FOS and POS as individually argued cases and it is wrong, because thousands of the same policy wordings are still live.

Policyholders should not have to fend for themselves on an individual case by case basis.

The original policies were standard wordings sold in their thousands.

mgdavid

good to see you're talking to yourself.
That Ignore option's working well....

agarnett

mgdavid wrote: »

good to see you're talking to yourself.
That Ignore option's working well....

Can't help yourself mgdavid, can you? Try pressing the button again and then staying away from it :rotfl:

dunstonh

Reminder for those that don't know how to add to ignore.

You click on the name of the poster and select view profile. This takes you to their profile. You then click on user lists and select add to ignore list.

agarnett

Reminder to all those MSE'ers that aren't sure why mgdavid and dunstonh recommend putting me on ignore that I worked for large financial services companies for the bulk of my career and have at times been appalled by what I saw going on, both in terms of what they did to customers, and what they did to lower level employees pensions - because they were also "customers" if they did but know it.

I have been sacked twice for whistleblowing (and paid large sums to get lost). I regularly complain to regulators (which usually is about as effective as calling 101 or 111 when something is wrong), but hey I live in hope and keep trying.

Yes I am the sort of co-worker or MSE member if you like that often makes the natives restless and some will back away and seek comfort in quiet groups blinking at the spectacle from the edge of the field.

Financial services companies have always operated cartels which arguably was sometimes for the common good to make sure risk premiums were consistent, but sadly their cartel behaviour has progressed beyond set tariffs for certain types of business, to the common ways they habitually disrespect and insult the intelligence of customers with valid queries and complaints, such that they have all proved more and more untrustworthy for over two decades now. Brand reputation means zilch in financial services, and anyone still relying on old household names being reliable is sadly way behind the times.

Those that still work in the industry have very thick skins and only survive by adhering very closely to the culture which is created at the top (which is universally bad). Those that work on the periphery and those who earn fees by advising and placing business with the insurance companies are fair game for serious questioning.

They and some other misguided supporters don't like it.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

what does this mean?

(i)
Practices 6.2

An additional paragraph will be added to explain that when the
value of the assets attributable to with-profits policies in the
With-Profits Sub-Fund become sufficiently small, below £250m,
we may take certain actions to protect the interests of the
remaining policyholders.

These are to declare a one-off bonus or
series of fixed future bonuses to use up the surplus in the
Sub-Fund, determine to add no further bonuses, and move
the policies to the Non-Profit Sub-Fund.

In addition, we will add the information that, at any time after
1 October 2017, we may merge any with-profits or non-
profit sub-funds, subject to certain constraints including taking
appropriate actuarial advice and consulting the With-Profits
Committee to ensure that the proposal is fair to policyholder

agarnett

This looks to me to indicate that they are completely reneging on the concept of With-Profits.

Better contact dunstonh - he'll have a better idea

Is this an afterthought communication by Aviva on the subject of their recently announced "2017 Scheme" ? The've already hit us with hundreds of pages of bumpf trying to bamboozle us with their latest crooked scheme, and now they've slipped this in?

PeacefulWaters

agarnett wrote: »

The've already hit us with hundreds of pages of bumpf trying to bamboozle us with their latest crooked scheme, and now they've slipped this in?

Are you complaining that they publish too much? Despite the thread title?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

https://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/product-literature/files/so/socwpsubfund.pdf

https://www.aviva.co.uk/form/changes-to-our-business-document-library/

agarnett

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Are you complaining that they publish too much? Despite the thread title?

Yes Peaceful Waters.

You have most likely confused two ideals (unless somewhere back in the dim distant were a seasoned insurance staffer and you have a residual corporate cultural need to argue a contrary position). The two ideals are:

1. That a long term policy of insurance should be safeguarded and the wording always accessible throughout the term
2. That a long term policy of insurance should never be altered by the issue of huge amounts of unilateral technical crookedness by the provider.