Who will accept a DB to SIPP transfer from "insistent client"

Malthusian

dunstonh said:

 If both have stated on their PROD they do non-advised, then it is hard to see how they can refuse and still comply with the stakeholder pension rules on transfers.   However, from other posts, SL does appear to be refusing.

I am not convinced that they can refuse. The Stakeholder Pension legislation seems very clear, and I don't think "You can but only if you get an adviser [which they know the punter can't]" gets them round it. If someone takes their pension provider to the Ombudsman for refusing to accept a DB transfer into their stakeholder pension, and the Ombudsman rules in their favour, which would require the Ombudsman to somehow ignore the legal requirement that the provider "must not refuse to accept transfer payments except in so far as necessary to ensure that the scheme has such exemption or approval", then I'll happily stand corrected.
Arguments based on "I rang the provider up and they said no, after which I left it at that" aren't weighty enough as evidence. People in the call centres of financial companies frequently get things wrong.

Malthusian

ZingPowZing said:

 And if they don't know, what chance has the ordinary "punter"? 

If the ordinary punter wants to transact an extremely high risk transaction that they have been advised against, onus is on them to do their research. If they can't be bothered it's a free country.

I've never said it was easy to transfer a DB pension against advice, I just said you don't need a positive recommendation to transfer, which is still true.

Hey, even if the stakeholder route is closed down, you could still open your own SSAS, one where you are the sole decision-maker as to whether the scheme accepts DB transfers or not.

eskbanker

Malthusian said:

Arguments based on "I rang the provider up and they said no, after which I left it at that" aren't weighty enough as evidence.

Much like this then?

Malthusian said:

There are at least two providers who advertise stakeholder pensions on consumer-facing websites with no suggestion that you need an adviser to open one.

Linton

Malthusian said:

ZingPowZing said:

 And if they don't know, what chance has the ordinary "punter"? 

If the ordinary punter wants to transact an extremely high risk transaction that they have been advised against, onus is on them to do their research. If they can't be bothered it's a free country.

I've never said it was easy to transfer a DB pension against advice, I just said you don't need a positive recommendation to transfer, which is still true.

Hey, even if the stakeholder route is closed down, you could still open your own SSAS, one where you are the sole decision-maker as to whether the scheme accepts DB transfers or not.

The perfect solution.  Those who want to strike out on their own have more or less complete freedom to do so whilst the bulk of the population carry on in a protected environment.

Malthusian

eskbanker said:

Malthusian said:

Arguments based on "I rang the provider up and they said no, after which I left it at that" aren't weighty enough as evidence.

Much like this then?

Malthusian said:

There are at least two providers who advertise stakeholder pensions on consumer-facing websites with no suggestion that you need an adviser to open one.

Not really. DunstonH backed up my assertion with more specific details.

There is a legal requirement for stakeholder pensions to accept transfers from any registered pension scheme. In the absence of further evidence, the law > some guy in a call centre saying "yeah but no but I guess". To someone doing idle research who left it at that, whereas someone insistent about transferring out of a DB scheme who was already the pension provider's customer would probably have made a formal complaint and sent the question higher up the food chain.

Or gone to one of the other providers (whose attitude to complying with the legal requirement to accept transfers from any registered pension scheme appears to be an unknown so far).

Anyway, I'm relaxed about the possibility that I'm proved wrong about my assertion "You do not need a positive recommendation to transfer, because you can use a stakeholder pension" because I've got the fallback of "You do not need a positive recommendation because you can run your own SSAS".

If that route then gets shut down I'll throw my hands up and say that the Government needs to change the rules. There should be a "safety valve" so that those insistent on cashing in their DB pensions can do so (and on their heads be it), even if it's difficult and costly, otherwise we're setting ourselves up for a repeat of the pension liberation fraud epidemic of the early 2010s.

If we (meaning the Government and the financial sector collectively) close off the avenue to do it legitimately, there will be increased demand to do it illegitimately (i.e. dodgy advisers issuing BS chicken-and-chips positive recommendations, planning to do a runner before the complaints come in). The FCA seems to have done the best job that can be expected of shutting that sector down, but if the safety valve is closed, I can see them being overwhelmed.

JoeCrystal

Malthusian said:

If we (meaning the Government and the financial sector collectively) close off the avenue to do it legitimately, there will be increased demand to do it illegitimately (i.e. dodgy advisers issuing BS chicken-and-chips positive recommendations, planning to do a runner before the complaints come in). The FCA seems to have done the best job that can be expected of shutting that sector down, but if the safety valve is closed, I can see them being overwhelmed.

I read an interesting article about that PPF did not have enough money to compensate, so need a loan from the government to compensate those who transferred into "pension liberation" schemes. However, the High Court ruled that “pension liberation” schemes were eligible to apply to the FCF for compensation. So the PPF need to borrow the money from the HM Treasury and pay it back for the next ten to fifteen years (The PPF calculated that the total could be as high as £350 million to pay out and needless to say, already planning to raised levy from the pension schemes to cover the cost.) 

Surely, it should still be difficult to transfer to "pension liberation" schemes from the DB pension schemes? Right?

Dale72

JoeCrystal said:

Surely, it should still be difficult to transfer to "pension liberation" schemes from the DB pension schemes? Right?

No. Comprehensive advice should need to be given, and in a way that the client fully understands, and then the decision should be left to them.

JoeCrystal

Dale72 said:

No. Comprehensive advice should need to be given, and in a way that the client fully understands, and then the decision should be left to them.

I don't have a problem with that as long they forfeit all compensations and their right to sue or make complaints. Unfortunately, the government and the regulators think otherwise, and so far, they are bending over backwards to help these poor greedy people. Like bailing out London Capital & Finance bondholders who deserved to lose everything since they 'didn't' realise that they may lose money even though the small prints made that crystal clear. Or bailing out the stupid people who transferred their funds to "pension liberation" schemes.

Besides, if you really want to transfer your DB pension, you need to convince your MP to change the law and ask the regulators to make the transfers easier. So get the ball rolling then.

QrizB

Malthusian said:

So far no-one has told a convincing tale of "I went to X and Y and tried to open a Stakeholder Pension with a nominal £20 but neither would let me without an adviser", and until that happens my understanding is that you can open a Stakeholder Pension and take advantage of the legal requirement to accept transfers from any registered pension scheme.

I'm conscious that wee've had 5 pages of this thread in as many days without any actual progress being made.

Perhaps one of the frustrated DB transferrers in this thread would like to try what @Malthusian suggests? Stump up £20 (you could even have a whip-round if you're all brassic) and open a stakeholder pension?

The worst outcome is that you're out of pocket by £20, at least until you reach 55.

Dale72

JoeCrystal said:

I don't have a problem with that as long they forfeit all compensations and their right to sue or make complaints. Unfortunately, the government and the regulators think otherwise, and so far, they are bending over backwards to help these poor greedy people. Like bailing out London Capital & Finance bondholders who deserved to lose everything since they 'didn't' realise that they may lose money even though the small prints made that crystal clear. Or bailing out the stupid people who transferred their funds to "pension liberation" schemes.

Besides, if you really want to transfer your DB pension, you need to convince your MP to change the law and ask the regulators to make the transfers easier. So get the ball rolling then.

and if they forfeit their right to sue or make complaints then who decides if they've been badly advised?