L&G proposed transfer to ReAssure

perivale_paul

Good morning all.

I have a stakeholder pension with L&G which I and my employer pay into.
I’ve recently payed a lump sum into it and have received a letter informing me of a proposed transfer of pensions to ReAssure.

I’ve never heard of them so I looked at some reviews all of which I have to say are not very complimentary.

Has anyone had any dealings with ReAssure, and if so what are your feelings ?

It’s a fairly sizeable pension pot I have so obviously I’m worried.

I also have 30 days to change my mind about my lump sum payment ,so I’m thinking of asking for the amount back especially if I transfer out.

Advice would be most welcome.

Thank you all.

dunstonh

I’ve never heard of them so I looked at some reviews all of which I have to say are not very complimentary.

But we should all know that online reviews for large companies are usually bad unless its a hipster brand or there has been review manipulation.

Has anyone had any dealings with ReAssure, and if so what are your feelings ?

Loads of dealings. ReAssure buy closed insurance company books or dieing insurance company books. So, by default, they are typically buying quite poor quality call centres, computer systems etc. and the products of those providers tends to be older obsolete plans. So, ReAssure, by default, are going to be criticised when people find out their old plan doesn't do what they want.

ReAssure initially carry on running the same systems and staff but look to amalgamate onto one of their other systems over the long term. Some areas they are quite good. Some areas they are quite poor. However, where they are poor, its generally a continuation of what was poor when it was operated under the old brand name.

It’s a fairly sizeable pension pot I have so obviously I’m worried.

No need to be worried. However, the fact you have a stakeholder pension and its with L&G probably means you are pretty out of date. You may have a rare good one in terms of special pricing but more likely your pension went out of date in, terms of what is best, around 2005. So, giving the pension a review now would make sense.

xylophone

So, giving the pension a review now would make sense.

It seems that the employer is making payments into the current stakeholder pension.

Perhaps it is time for the employer to review the company pension scheme?

xylophone

I also have 30 days to change my mind about my lump sum payment ,so I’m thinking of asking for the amount back especially if I transfer out.

I don't see that there is any need to worry.

In your situation I would let the payment go through and then review the pension situation.

Is this a company stakeholder pension?

dunstonh

xylophone wrote: »

It seems that the employer is making payments into the current stakeholder pension.

Perhaps it is time for the employer to review the company pension scheme?

In which case, there is nothing to change. Many employers used auto-enrolment as a reason to upgrade their pensions to something more modern and cheaper. A number just used their older scheme and brought in the price cap to 0.75%.

Or it maybe the employer already had a good deal with L&G and decided to keep it.

squirrelpie

“

I also have 30 days to change my mind about my lump sum payment ,so I’m thinking of asking for the amount back especially if I transfer out. ”

In your situation I would let the payment go through and then review the pension situation.

Is anything lost by taking the payment back and then reviewing the situation? It seems to me that would increase the options without losing anything. The payment could be made again later in the tax year without changing much, or it could be paid into a separate scheme if that was deemed better.


The obvious outstanding question to me is what is ReAssure's reputation with ongoing, active pension contributions rather than old, deferred ones?

dunstonh

Is anything lost by taking the payment back and then reviewing the situation?

Yes it will be. Any gains made during that period are not usually returned. There is a good chance that there has been gains in the period in question.

The obvious outstanding question to me is what is ReAssure's reputation with ongoing, active pension contributions rather than old, deferred ones?

No difference whatsoever. it will be the same L&G office, staff, computer systems etc for a good many years. The logo will change in the corner. So, you would be effectively changing your mind because you do not like the logo.

perivale_paul

Just to clarify.
Yes the company pay into the scheme .
It’s only a small business, 3 of us in total and Im sure they have the same pension plan.
The lump sum was payed in last week, just before the budget.
L&G have given me 30 days to take my money back , which I am tempted to do.
I don’t want to transfer the money in only to decide I’m going to transfer out of the fund in the next few months.
Would I be charged a penalty to transfer out ?
I’m trying to avoid a provider who is the equivalent of Ryan Air..

shinytop

I’m trying to avoid a provider who is the equivalent of Ryan Air..

Ryanair are cheap, generally do what their rules say (even though you might not like them or haven't read them) and are unlikely to go bust and lose your money. I quite like them ...

xylophone

L&G have given me 30 days to take my money back , which I am tempted to do

Why?

Nothing will change except the logo on your annual pension statement?

dunstonh

L&G have given me 30 days to take my money back , which I am tempted to do.

You havent given any logical reason for that in the thread so far.

Would I be charged a penalty to transfer out ?

its a stakeholder pension. It isnt allowed. Also, it may not be possible to transfer out without losing the future employer contribution.

I’m trying to avoid a provider who is the equivalent of Ryan Air..

Clearly there is no comparison with Ryanair and ReAssure.

Beyond reading some reviews on the internet from people who are probably not really knowledgeable enough to write the reviews and probably didnt identify the original insurer (which is where most issues would have come from), what issues do you have a relatively wealthy regulated company running acting as administrator for your pension?