Please help, cannot collect pension pot without form signing!!!

[Deleted User]

"Pension freedom" is skewing away from its principles.
People are forced to take advice from IFAs.
Loads of people are getting the wrong advice because the first concern of an IFA, as in this case, is to cover his own sorry behind.
As has been stated, there is no point in complaining because the IFA is doing "nothing wrong."
High time the process was under review.

hyubh

ZingPowZing wrote: »

"Pension freedom" is skewing away from its principles.

Wrong, the advice requirement for exchanging guaranteed benefits for a pure money purchase arrangement was an intrinsic part of the 2015 changes, which were about liberalising what you could do with a pure money purchase pot, not liberalising what you could do with any sort of pension.

Loads of people are getting the wrong advice because the first concern of an IFA, as in this case, is to cover his own sorry behind.

Even previous providers are at risk of getting it in the neck - OK, DB rather than an old DC with a GAR, but see this:

https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/determinations/2019/po-21489/local-government-pension-scheme-hampshire-pension-fund/

Woman gets cold-cold by a scammer, likes what she hears, so contacts her LGPS administrator requesting a transfer out. She is given an industry-standard leaflet warning of the dangers, but still goes ahead. After the transfer is completed, the scammer runs off with the money, on which she complains that the administrator shouldn't have allowed her to transfer out in the first place. Administrator loses the case on the basis she was indeed too thick to comprehend the process, and should have been more firmly warned off - gets full restitution of her original DB benefits + £500 compensation!

sandsy

ZingPowZing wrote: »

"Pension freedom" is skewing away from its principles.
People are forced to take advice from IFAs.
Loads of people are getting the wrong advice because the first concern of an IFA, as in this case, is to cover his own sorry behind.
As has been stated, there is no point in complaining because the IFA is doing "nothing wrong."
High time the process was under review.

You're missing the point.

Government were really worried that people like you wouldn't see the value in the valuable guaranteed products they hold. So they put in place a safety net, if you like - a law to protect people from themselves, requiring them to take proper financial advice from a regulated adviser who has a duty to give you the right advice for you, whether you like the advice or not.

The more you contact advisers telling them how desperate you are to give up the benefits that you're reluctant to give us the details of, the higher the chance that an adviser will decline to advise you because you're a complaint waiting to happen.

it's unlikely the process will get reviewed precisely because of people like you.

It isn't just a form to fill in. It follows an intensive process of looking at your personal circumstances to see how that guaranteed benefit fits into your retirement plans. It takes several hours to do properly. Filling in the form is the easy bit at the end - the advice is the hard bit and good financial planning should add proper value to you, if it's done properly.

[Deleted User]

The "advice requirement" is worse than no advice at all if the advice is predicated on the interest of the adviser rather than the client.

Sure, compensation-culture has changed UK society for the worse, no argument there.

[Deleted User]

"Government were really worried that people like you .. a duty to give you the right advice for you, whether you like the advice or not."

No, I think you're missing the point, sandsy.
It's easy to find two advisers giving conflicting advice, in my experience.
The OP's trouble is in finding an adviser to sign that form.

SonOf

Loads of people are getting the wrong advice because the first concern of an IFA, as in this case, is to cover his own sorry behind.

If the IFA gives the right advice, they have little to fear. The problem is that the right advice is often not what the pension holder wants to hear.

"Pension freedom" is skewing away from its principles.

No its not. The 2015 rules actually increased the number of areas where advice was not required for pension transfers. It retained it in areas of high risk of bad decision making by the pension holder.

Pension freedoms were about giving increased options. Not increasing the number of cases where people do something wrong.

The "advice requirement" is worse than no advice at all if the advice is predicated on the interest of the adviser rather than the client.

That is just ranting and not on the basis of fact.

It's easy to find two advisers giving conflicting advice, in my experience.

of course it is.
1) as providers give different terms to different advisers.
2) as there are many different investment strategies and investing is an awful lot to do with opinion.

The OP's trouble is in finding an adviser to sign that form.

Yes. Because based solely on what has been written by the OP, they are asking an IFA to carry out a very high risk transaction that is probably not in their best interests and is determined to do so irrespective of advice. Several posters on the thread who have good knowledge of things (such as CIS GARs) suspect that the information the OP has given is incorrect or mistaken or missing things which would be important.

We had an arborist out recently to cut back an oak tree, amongst other things. He told me that he had refused to cut an oak down for someone as felling it would create subsidence and flooding to a basement. The person still wanted it done but he refused to do it. That person got someone else to do it. The basement went on to flood and the house suffered movement. The person then complained to the arborist that felled it blaming them for all the problems. The honest, decent and professional arborist told him it was wrong and refused to do what they knew was wrong. The arborist that felled the tree gave the consumer what they wanted....until things went wrong and they went looking to blame someone, despite being told what could happen.

Based on what you have said, you think it is better for professionals to do things that are known to be wrong.

Brynsam

ZingPowZing wrote: »

It's easy to find two advisers giving conflicting advice, in my experience.
The OP's trouble is in finding an adviser to sign that form.

Not when it comes to transferring pensions and advice is required it isn't! Clearly you have very limited experience of that particular field.

Of course OP is 'having trouble' - they've donned blinkers and taken the view that all the adviser needs to do is tick a few boxes without the faintest idea of what the transaction is all about. And guess what? They'd be first in the queue to complain when the market crashes and oh, oh, oh...the adviser didn't warn me....

Dox

ZingPowZing wrote: »

The "advice requirement" is worse than no advice at all if the advice is predicated on the interest of the adviser rather than the client.

The advice is best advice for the client, a point you've happily overlooked in an attempt to stoke up a spurious argument. When people like OP come along, convinced they know it all already (and often genuinely believe they do), with absolutely no concept of the risks being run by the adviser, small wonder that any adviser with more than a couple of functioning brain cells runs a mile.

Clients don't have to follow advice, but they would be well advised to at least take note of it.

[Deleted User]

"Not when it comes to transferring pensions and advice is required it isn't! Clearly you have very limited experience of that particular field." - My second financial adviser made the opposite recommendation to the first but I could see very clearly that each was advising according to his own interest, rather than mine.

Catch 22 is that the client is compelled to buy advice but cannot thereafter induce the adviser to acknowledge the fact that advice has been given.

I know that this is rather an echo chamber for FA self-justification, but the situation is just ridiculous.

[Deleted User]

Dox - If I had followed the advice of my first adviser, I would already have forfeit more in subsequent gains to the value of my pension than I am likely to earn in the rest of my working life. Don't try to tell me which Financial Adviser came to the correct recommendation, the first more or less admitted he was covering his own behind but his fee was assured, the second had his eyes on commission.