We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.
Outrageous transfer value

InvertedWorld
Posts: 2 Newbie
Hi All
I have a personal pension with Lincoln that has underperformed significantly for a number of years.
I would like to transfer the money I have invested in this pension to a different provider but the transfer values I have been given by Lincoln represent only about half of what my investment is worth if I stay put. In other words if I decide to leave they will keep half of my money as punishment!
My finanacial adviser says this is in the small print that I signed up to at the time (about 10 years ago now) and there is nothing I can do.
This really sticks in my throat - I find it outrageous that these people can just help them selves to my hard earned money.
Does anyone here have any experience of challenging this type of regulation as unfair?
Thanks in advance for any help and sorry for the rant!
Mark
I have a personal pension with Lincoln that has underperformed significantly for a number of years.
I would like to transfer the money I have invested in this pension to a different provider but the transfer values I have been given by Lincoln represent only about half of what my investment is worth if I stay put. In other words if I decide to leave they will keep half of my money as punishment!
My finanacial adviser says this is in the small print that I signed up to at the time (about 10 years ago now) and there is nothing I can do.
This really sticks in my throat - I find it outrageous that these people can just help them selves to my hard earned money.
Does anyone here have any experience of challenging this type of regulation as unfair?
Thanks in advance for any help and sorry for the rant!
Mark
0
Comments
-
Does anyone here have any experience of challenging this type of regulation as unfair?
Lincoln pensions are not normally that bad as they offer a unit linked range with most of theirs and this includes external funds. The pension hasnt underperformed. The investment funds you have appear to have underperformed your expectactions. Whether your expectations are realistic or not I dont know or may you have fund(s) which are not matching your aims.
The best course of action here would be to investigate what other funds are available and utilise those. A transfer analysis should also take place as it could be that a modern pension plan has lower ongoing charges which make up the transfer penalty over the remaining term.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Thanks for your reply.
I fully accept that this was part of the original terms and conditions that I signed (although I am certain it was not drawn to my attention at the time otherwise I would not have agreed to it).
My point is that the proportion of the money being witheld is not reasonable. It seems like every few days I hear about customers challenging financial institutions over excessive charges and I was interested in finding out whether this has happened in the case of pension investments such as mine.0 -
A lot of people got caught by these iniquitous "capital unit" policies :mad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,654365,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,660189,00.html
It may be possible to make a misselling claim but it's a bit complex.It depends on the difference between "single" premiums and "regular" premiums, and what type of units these premiums buy ("capital" - where they steal the money) or "accumulation" (where they don't).
This thread is useful:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=355374Trying to keep it simple...0 -
I fully accept that this was part of the original terms and conditions that I signed (although I am certain it was not drawn to my attention at the time otherwise I would not have agreed to it).
It didnt need to be brought to your attention. Just the key points needed to be. The transfer penalty would have been mentioned on either the illustration and/or key features document (cut down version of the T&C).My point is that the proportion of the money being witheld is not reasonable. It seems like every few days I hear about customers challenging financial institutions over excessive charges and I was interested in finding out whether this has happened in the case of pension investments such as mine.
It doesnt matter what they charge. They are not penalty charges and therefore rules that apply in those areas do not apply to these.
Charges like this are obsolete. Most plans now have no transfer penalties and havent since the start of the decade but legacy plans that were designed in an era of boom/bust and high inflation often look obsolete by todays standards.I don't think this is a very unusual business practice, especially with long term investments such as pensions and endowments. I was looking at a new pension that tied me in for about 10 years, but provided a loyalty bonus at the end of that time.
Scot Equitable do one like that still and it can work out cheaper than a stakeholder pension if you have enough years until retirement. Scottish Life have a plan where they give an increased allocation on contributions but will claw back some of that allocation if you transfer (obviously they are not going to give you free money for you to take it elsewhere).A lot of people got caught by these iniquitous "capital unit" policies :mad:
Ed forgets that it wasnt being caught. It was par for the course at the time and had the old boom/bost, high inflation economy continued, then they would not look anywhere near as poor as they do today. Times change.
It may be possible to make a misselling claim but it's a bit complex.It depends on the difference between "single" premiums and "regular" premiums, and what type of units these premiums buy ("capital" - where they steal the money) or "accumulation" (where they don't).
Its very hard to claim a miss-sale as the product was right and most of these would have been sold by tied agents who are only authorised and licenced to sell the best product in their own range. You wanted a pension, you got a pension. The charges may look obsolete by todays standards but they were the norm at the time.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Its very hard to claim a miss-sale as the product was right and most of these would have been sold by tied agents who are only authorised and licenced to sell the best product in their own range.
.........he's not wrong !!! :mad:
In my own case it has been impossible to prove what was said and what wasn't at the time I spoke to this [EMAIL="#@$££&%"]'person'[/EMAIL] in 1989, so I'm struggling to prove anything !
I signed it anyway !!!!'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 241K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.7K Life & Family
- 254.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards