Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown

[Deleted User]

Prism wrote: »

Why didn't you try and find one of those providers first with the knowledge that it was unlikely that HL would recommend a transfer at all, before paying for a service that you would find of little other benefit

Firstly, I was given to think that finding such a provider would be an easy step. Full disclosure, my expectation was that they would recommend another reputable provider and, perhaps, complete the paperwork! I was green but the reality seemed to me reckless and dangerous and still does.
Secondly, my financial adviser told me that my case was marginal and "in the balance." But it was only in the balance until I agreed for him to go forward with the final recommendation, then his judgement moved towards a recommendation that, in hindsight, was inevitable.

My warning is not simply that potential clients get caught for a big fee but that they may get a recommendation based on the interests of Hargreaves Lansdown.

The Financial Ombudsman takes six weeks - I learn - to publish a final decision. So mine should be in case studies c the first week in September.
I am not Mr O

[Deleted User]

Well that is a very interesting response, Malthusian.

Hargreaves Lansdown induce clients to commit to a full report on the promise of there being reputable alternative providers willing to accept a transfer on their negative recommendation.

They are setting up insistent clients to fail.

[Deleted User]

"Not HL, they'd done their job and they can't be forced to jump through other people's hoops when they'd provided all that was legally required. "

For anybody picking up the thread after the start, I had already found an alternative SIPP provider willing to accept the transfer and completed the application. All my adviser had to do was come to reception at Hargreaves Lansdown and sign a declaration to the fact that he had provided financial advice. Hardly jumping through hoops.

In the event, the deadline passed, I employed another IFA and -surprise-got a positive recommendation.

Albermarle

A close to no brainer transfer case would be a scheme paying 3% of the CETV as income

Jamesd - Something I am a bit confused about so maybe you can help.
If your DB scheme has a NRD of 65 and has a projected pension of £15,000 pa ( as an example )
At 60 years old you are offered a CETV of £450K or the possibility to take the DB pension early but reduced to say £12K ,
Is the scheme offering an income of 3.33% on the CETV ( £15K /£450K ) or 2.66% ( £12K/£450K) ?
Or in other words a multiple of 30 or 37.5 ?
I suppose one issue is if you have an extra 5 years to make the money last .

Malthusian

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Hargreaves Lansdown induce clients to commit to a full report on the promise of there being reputable alternative providers willing to accept a transfer on their negative recommendation.

There are. If we take the plural for the singular.

They are setting up insistent clients to fail.

If insistent clients can't be bothered to put in the legwork to find a SIPP provider that will accept them that's not HL's problem.

A simple post on this forum along the lines of "Can anyone tell me which SIPP provider(s) still accept insistent DB clients?" would probably do the job. As would a Google search for previous threads along the lines of "site:forums.moneysavingexpert.com insistent client sipp provider".

For anybody picking up the thread after the start, I had already found an alternative SIPP provider willing to accept the transfer

Was that provider aware that at the time, you didn't have a positive recommendation?

All my adviser had to do was come to reception at Hargreaves Lansdown and sign a declaration to the fact that he had provided financial advice. Hardly jumping through hoops.

All your new provider had to do - assuming they were one of the small number that would accept DB transfers without a positive recommendation - was accept the declaration that Hargreaves Lansdown had already provided.

As a rule pension providers do not complete each other's paperwork. When Pension Company A sends a form to Pension Company B, Pension Company B throws it away and sends back a standard document which says at the top "Here is all the information that would go on your form if we could be bothered to hunch over other companies' forms". They are all well used to this. If your new provider had been willing to accept a transfer without a positive recommendation, there is no reason they should not have accepted HL's declaration.

If your provider wasn't the only provider (or one of the only providers) that accepts insistent clients, then your adviser was correct to save his shoe leather as it would have made no difference if he had skipped down to reception, signed the declaration and sealed it with a kiss. The provider would not have accepted it anyway.

Unless of course the form that your new provider wanted HL to sign said "I confirm that I have provided my client with a positive recommendation to transfer", in which case HL were correct not to sign it because they hadn't.

It may help at this point if you tell us which SIPP provider you were trying to use at that time, because then we will know whether they would have accepted the transfer without a positive recommendation.

Once you employed a new IFA and got the answer you were looking for, all this was moot as the entire wide shining sea of the SIPP market opened up to you and your positive recommendation to transfer.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Mr M, I have read the ombudsmen report on you case against HL. To me it appears you did not want to pay for their advice, but had to do so for you to transfer your DB Scheme. From reading it, it appears that your attitude of 'I know better, has worked against you in this case.


Your only complaint in reality is that you did not want to pay for advice, and wanted to draw on your pension, or as I said earlier on the other thread ---

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

BoP interprets for most of us who cannot wait.


OP transferred their DB Pension scam at age 55, spent his dosh and wants recompense. We await his good news!


Don't worry, his good fortune will soon go up in smoke like the last bag of cash.


Dave, aged 58 and a quarter!

I hope, Dave, sorry M you enjoyed your world cruise!
Ombudsmen Report?
https://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=216717

nigelbb

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Mr M, I have read the ombudsmen report on you case against HL. To me it appears you did not want to pay for their advice, but had to do so for you to transfer your DB Scheme. From reading it, it appears that your attitude of 'I know better, has worked against you in this case.


Your only complaint in reality is that you did not want to pay for advice, and wanted to draw on your pension, or as I said earlier on the other thread ---



I hope, Dave, sorry M you enjoyed your world cruise!
Ombudsmen Report?
https://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=216717

That's not the OP. The OP says their case hasn't been published yet & the facts as described are anyway different.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

nigelbb wrote: »

That's not the OP. The OP says their case hasn't been published yet & the facts as described are anyway different.

I bet they are not far indifferent to the ones already published?

LHW99

Once you employed a new IFA and got the answer you were looking for, all this was moot as the entire wide shining sea of the SIPP market opened up to you and your positive recommendation to transfer.

I do find it interesting that within (presumably) a short time, two different IFA's could come to opposite conclusions on the same question.

xylophone

If your new provider had been willing to accept a transfer without a positive recommendation,

https://www.pruadviser.co.uk/knowledge-literature/knowledge-library/transfer-pension-scheme/



However, although most schemes provide the right to transfer, not every scheme has to accept an incoming transfer.

A stakeholder pension scheme is currently the only type of scheme which must accept any transfer from another registered pension scheme.

Transfer first to a stakeholder and then to a SIPP?