FAs Go Ahead

thebullsback

OK so if you have to see a FA about cashing in or moving a pension and they wont sanction it can you still go ahead with your own wishes in spite of this?
And NO I wouldn't do it but im curious.

TBC15

As long as IFA is willing to sign a piece of paper saying you have received advice (on the face of it not the most difficult thing in the world) and you have found a SIPP provider such as AJ Bell who is willing to take the transfer, no problem.

thebullsback

So are you saying that even if the pension holder is willing to ignore the FAs advice then the other parties could still refuse the pension holders request to cash in,Transfer or whatever?

TBC15

It’s my understanding that the vast majority of SIPP providers will not accept a transfer against advice.

I’m not sure about the majority of DB schemes, or even if it is an issue.

Linton

thebullsback wrote: »

So are you saying that even if the pension holder is willing to ignore the FAs advice then the other parties could still refuse the pension holders request to cash in,Transfer or whatever?

Yes, companies arent compelled to accept you as a customer. Some may not be prepared to take the risk of you trying to sue them for a mis-sale at some future date if the transfer turns out to be the wrong thing to have done.

TBC15

I think the main problem is people are finding it difficult to find an IFA willing to sign to the effect he has given advice if the advice is not to transfer, which is the default position, unless an extremely convincing case can be made.

Strange as he has absolved himself of risk?

dunstonh

Some IFAs will not sign the transfer paperwork unless the advice is positive to transfer.

Some providers will not accept a transfer in unless the advice is positive to transfer.

Strange as he has absolved himself of risk?

Theoretically yes. However, it is still a liability and some fear that the FOS will take a different view. There have been some insistent client complaints (done against advice) where the FOS have ruled the adviser. Plus, the FCA have said in the past that advisers should not transact business that they know to be wrong. When advisers asked the FCA to clarify the situation two years ago, the FCA wouldn't give a definitive answer to the concerns saying its guidelines were sufficient. Although eventually, it did give a bit more useful information.

Some PI insurers won't cover advisers that transact against advice.

So, its important to get confirmation that the adviser will allow the transaction to proceed on an insistent client basis if the advice is not to transfer.

RickyB2000

TBC15 wrote: »

I think the main problem is people are finding it difficult to find an IFA willing to sign to the effect he has given advice if the advice is not to transfer, which is the default position, unless an extremely convincing case can be made.

Strange as he has absolved himself of risk?

I *think* it is because it is not just a yes or no. It outlines the reasons for that desicion. So let's say there are 4 reasons not to transfer. The IFA advises no and outlines 3 of the reasons. You proceed to transfer anyway. It ends horribly. You can now claim against the IFA that you made your desicion to proceed based on consideration of their advice and as they missed one of the reason you shouldn't transfer they were negligent and should put you back were you were before. Which could be very expensive. Why take the risk.....

xylophone

http://adviser.royallondon.com/news/pensions/2015/june/options-around-insistent-clients/

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/06/21/fca-promises-greater-clarity-on-insistent-clients/

https://www.professionaladviser.com/professional-adviser/news/3012387/fca-leaves-insistent-clients-in-advisers-hands

sandsy

TBC15 wrote: »

Strange as he has absolved himself of risk?

He hasn't absolved himself of the risk. He remains liable for the risk for his lifetime, even where the advice is not to transfer. If he got that wrong, he remains liable.

And providers of personal pensions, SIPPS etc can decide for themselves what business to accept. Providers ended up paying out a lot of money during the last pensions mis-selling review. They're not willing to risk putting themselves in the same position again.

TBC15

sandsy wrote: »

He hasn't absolved himself of the risk. He remains liable for the risk for his lifetime, even where the advice is not to transfer. If he got that wrong, he remains liable.

And providers of personal pensions, SIPPS etc can decide for themselves what business to accept. Providers ended up paying out a lot of money during the last pensions mis-selling review. They're not willing to risk putting themselves in the same position again.

So why be an IFA with qualifications to do this sort of work if you don’t want to do this sort of work?