Section 32 pension about to close - what to do?

xylophone

Where is it stipulated?

Ask Aegon in writing to cite chapter and verse.

xylophone

I advised wanted remainder moved to Aegon drawdown but told that they must see positive sign off from FA as stipulated by ‘the regulator’ due to the complexity of the product.

Where is it stipulated?

Ask Aegon in writing to cite chapter and verse.

In the end, this may be a case for the Ombudsman?

Malthusian

xylophone wrote: »

Where is it stipulated?

Ask Aegon in writing to cite chapter and verse.

I don't know where you'd find chapter and verse that Aegon cannot be forced to do new business with anyone.

Moving the non-TFLS part of the fund to a new Aegon pension is new business and Aegon can't be forced to let you open a new plan with them.

The OP can however access the TFLS without advice and then move the remainder to another policy that isn't with Aegon, after finding a provider that is happy for them to open a new pension plan without advice.

"Because the regulator" is Aegon being tactful. The real reason is that they do not want the business. Not without an adviser and a positive recommendation to act as human shield against any complaint. The OP just needs to take his business elsewhere once he has taken the TFLS.

There is no need for the OP to go to the Ombudsman, he just needs to find another provider who will accept the balance of the fund after taking the TFLS, without advice.

xylophone

I don't know where you'd find chapter and verse that Aegon cannot be forced to do new business with anyone.

But this is not what Aegon is saying.

Aegon has said

they must see positive sign off from FA as stipulated by ‘the regulator’ due to the complexity of the product. This will just be a cash fund?

This is nonsense.

As for

The OP can however access the TFLS without advice and then move the remainder to another policy that isn't with Aegon, after finding a provider that is happy for them to open a new pension plan without advice.

the OP says in his post above

I suggested taking TFLS and moving remainder to another provider but has to be moved to another Aegon fund first which must be sanctioned by FA

He has to get an IFA sign off to move just £32000 of non safeguarded benefits to an Aegon product before he transfers to another provider?

Utterly ridiculous?

xylophone

"Because the regulator" is Aegon being tactful.

or "economical with the truth"?

It must be the heat but I'm beginning to feel stroppy on the OP's behalf!

jamesd

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't know where you'd find chapter and verse that Aegon cannot be forced to do new business with anyone.

No real disagreement about that for entirely new business anyway.

The crux of the issue here ends up being Aegon failing to treat customers in this position fairly by imposing a positive advice requirement on the existing customer. Fair could be an undertaking to initiate a switch to another provider within a month of the PCLS being paid or even Aegon already having in their hands an execute after paying PCLS switch request from the receiving scheme. Perhaps accompanied by a "no change in investments except the automatic switch to cash while with Aegon". Blackavar doesn't even want to do drawdown on the 75%: "We are fortunately fairly cash rich so keen to keep money invested as long as possible" so that stipulation while with Aegon is also possible.

Complaint then Ombudsman might be what it takes to get fair treatment.

The FCA has to sign off on some plans. If Aegon chose to describe a product as only offered with advice then they are required to operate it that way. A firm which wishes to mislead a customer could misrepresent this business choice as a requirement of the regulator. Which doesn't help Aegon because it does nothing to remove the requirement to treat the existing customer fairly. It'd just show that they failed to provide for a case they need to provide for.

xylophone

The crux of the issue here ends up being Aegon failing to treat customers in this position fairly

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/fair-treatment-customers

Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

Blackavar

Massive thanks for all your input on this . At least I no longer feel that I’m going mad. I will be drafting a letter of complaint tonight outlining what I am trying to achieve highlighting why I feel I am being treated unfairly and asking for a reference point to the rules that have been alluded to. Hopefully I will get a response during my short break although the guy that is sending me a list of options pertaining to this policy said it would take ‘up to fourteen days’ so not holding breath.

jamesd

Let it take the 14 days to give you a written thing to complain about as well.

By now they might have recognised that you're getting help and come up with something fair. Maybe a no explicit complaint nudge in the right direction now with Outcome 6, so far you're having difficulty seeing how they haven't created an unreasonable post-sale barrier and asking them whether the things in my crux of para might help.

That'll show you being helpful and working to try to find a solution and that's handy if an Ombudsman may later be looking at it.

Blackavar

Update - letter sent to Aegon and just had telephone conversation with a ‘complaints officer’ in response. Not a very helpful experience. I am advised that in order to access the tax free cash, I must move the crystalsed remainder into another Aegon policy (drawdown) which requires positive FA sign off. He advised that this was an Aegon directive. I explained that a) I couldn’t find one to do this and b) felt it unfair that I need to pay a FA to access my own money. He said he couldn’t provide advice. I asked him to summarise his response in writing to me. This is a real grind.