Conned out of pension

[Deleted User]

Bridging loan terms were !!!8216;loan amount!!!8217;, interest payable per annum. Loan term 10 years, interest paid in advance and deducted from loan amount. When the interest payable is added to the amount paid to me it totals the transfer total.

xylophone

Letter from employer confirms that a payment in respect of transfer value from the above scheme (superannuation fund) has been issued to the drilling/geotechnical ltd. company

Were there no questions at all from the administrator of your old scheme about the transferee?

Or was the appearance given that you were transferring to the company pension scheme of Drilling/Geotechnical Ltd ?

As you were over age 55, you could have accessed your pension legally - a 25% tax free lump sum with the balance taxed as income.

Are you saying that Drilling Geotechnical Ltd purported to make you a loan (interest in advance) against the value of your pension which would remain invested?

What actually happened was that they took control of the cash, paid you a certain amount of it which they called "the bridging loan" and took the whole of the balance (£35,000?) as the "interest??

Dox

Tricia58 wrote: »

Looking through documents from employer and drilling company I haven!!!8217;t actually signed any of their forms. I thank everyone who has tried to help with their good advice. It all does seem murky so who would I go to for this to be looked into properly.

Contact the Pensions Advisory Service for free, impartial help. Being bombarded with queries on this site isn't really helping you when you are already more than a bit out of your depth. Link: https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk

[Deleted User]

Thank you for the link.

[Deleted User]

Was told by employer could not take any money even though I spent months arguing with them

xylophone

https://www.sackers.com/publication/pensions-ombudsman-rules-on-transfer-requests/

The above is from January 2015, the year when the administrators of the DB Scheme permitted the transfer out.


The starting point for trustees is that they have a duty to carry out a CETV where the legislative requirements are met.

To satisfy the statutory requirements for a CETV, the transfer must be to a registered occupational or personal pension scheme.

TPR’s guidance includes a checklist which sets out a number of points which should be verified in establishing the validity of a proposed receiving scheme. As TPR notes, answering “yes” to any of the questions individually does not necessarily indicate a pension scam, but if several features are present, there may be cause for concern.

The difficulty in many cases is that trustees and providers are faced with an arrangement that is ostensibly an occupational pension scheme. As the Ombudsman’s recent decisions illustrate, further enquiries may be needed to establish whether all the elements needed for a statutory CETV are present.

The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the “highly unenviable” position of trustees, pension providers, managers and administrators in deciding whether a request should be complied with, delayed pending further investigations and/or potentially refused. However, in his view, once the trustees or provider have followed all the relevant steps, “the individual’s right to make what might be a life-changing mistake must take supremacy over [the trustee or provider’s] obligation to help them not to”.

The chance of the OP's bringing Drilling /Geotechnical Ltd (and the friend?) to book seem remote but she might discuss with TPAS whether the Trustees of her deferred pension demonstrated due diligence?

xylophone

Was told by employer could not take any money even though I spent months arguing with them

They did not even offer payment with actuarial reduction for access before scheme pension age?

Clearly they did sanction the transfer out.

See post above.

Dox

xylophone wrote: »

They did not even offer payment with actuarial reduction for access before scheme pension age?

As OP left the scheme over 20 years ago, it is highly likely there was a GMP element. One common reason for refusing early retirement is that the GMP wouldn't be covered at State Pension Age if the individual drew their pension early with the appropriate actuarial reduction. This is particularly true where someone had modest earnings.

xylophone

it is highly likely there was a GMP element.

This was almost certainly so.

I have known cases where the salary was modest but the GMP was covered and "early retirement" permitted - it is possible that in the OP's situation that the GMP was not covered.

It is also possible that the scheme simply did not allow early access to a deferred pension or indeed any pension except under certain circumstances.

[Deleted User]

Leaflets I had said I could take early money but they continually refused to allow it after numerous emails and phone calls.