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

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

The key thing is that should sign to say that they have given regulated advice. They are not required to sign if the provider is asking them to take on the liability. Some of the providers you approached (using your list) would only accept business if it was processed through the agency of the adviser firm and the firm accepted liability for doing so. I suspect that is where yours fell down as the providers in question wanted more than the HL were willing to provide (and HL were quite right to reject that).

I cannot provide the detail with an online link as it was legal opinion and provided commercially to adviser firms that pay for that compliance service. It followed what was spoken on Moneybox by the Pension Advisory Service who said advisers should sign the forms even if the advice is negative. And the firm that refused changed their position following that and gave a goodwill gesture for refusing to do so.

No, in my case, what was required was simply a signature to acknowledge that advice had been given. Same as the requirement of Standard Life, if I understand urshieb correctly.

So, you're saying definitively, if an adviser gives advice, he must acknowledge the fact where required, without taking on liability. That's correct?

SonOf

No, in my case, what was required was simply a signature to acknowledge that advice had been given. Same as the requirement of Standard Life, if I understand urshieb correctly.

Both Standard Life Elevate and Standard Life Wrap require the pension to be placed through the agency of an intermediary (i.e. the adviser firm) and both require advice has been given. This doesnt just mean the transfer but also advice regarding the provider chosen and the investments.

HL are restricted FAs. They are not IFAs. So, they cannot confirm advice given in respect of provider/platform.

You need to use a DIY only provider in this scenario as they will not require the adviser firm to place business through their agency and accept liability.

I seem to recall you had Old Mutual Wealth on your list as well and they are another intermediary only provider.

So, you're saying definitively, if an adviser gives advice, he must acknowledge the fact where required, without taking on liability. That's correct?

If the declaration is just to confirm advice has been given then that should be signed. If the declaration includes taking on liability for new provider and investments selected then that can be refused as they have not given advice on those things (and in the case of restricted FAs, they cannot as they are restricted).

And it must be after full regulated advice and not a cut down initial guidance service. The latter is largely pointless IMO (and I suspect you agree with that given your "extreme" disappointment with it).

[Deleted User]

If the declaration is just to confirm advice has been given then that should be signed. -Son Of

Well that should solve urshieb's predicament. Rather than her quoting you, who will confirm this? FCA? Pensions Regulator?

Hargreaves Lansdown comply? You intervened a dozen times on the "Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown" thread without mentioning this requirement.

[Deleted User]

HL are restricted FAs. They are not IFAs. So, they cannot confirm advice given in respect of provider/platform. -Son Of
I don't understand the *therefore* of that statement. By what regulation are restricted FA's unable to confirm to a third party that they have given advice? Link, please.

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

HL are restricted FAs. They are not IFAs. So, they cannot confirm advice given in respect of provider/platform. -Son Of

I don't understand the *therefore* of that statement. By what regulation are restricted FA's unable to confirm to a third party that they have given advice? Link, please.

It is literally in the paragraph of his post above the part you quoted.

To recap, he said, "Both Standard Life Elevate and Standard Life Wrap require the pension to be placed through the agency of an intermediary (i.e. the adviser firm) and both require advice has been given. This doesnt just mean the transfer but also advice regarding the provider chosen and the investments."

Breaking that down:

Standard Life Wrap and Standard Life Elevate are the type of investment provider business which takes on pensions money through intermediaries, rather than direct from any old diy customer who fancies using them.

Therefore, they won't take you as a direct customer, but could take you if an adviser acted to introduce you and place some of your pensions business with them, acting as agent/ intermediary for the purpose of you buying investments on their platform.

The customer onboarding team at SL Wrap / Elevate will accept pensions money being transferred to buy and hold investments on their platform if a regulated adviser with the necessary permissions has said that advice has been given on the transfer, the platform and what investments should be bought.

As a consequence:

An IFA could therefore assess your situation, determine that it was in your best interests for you to give up your defined benefits in exchange for a cash transfer value which would be used to buy a particular portfolio on the SL platform, and tell SL that they had provided such advice and wanted to facilitate your moving your DP pension money to SL to carry out the advised plan.

But by contrast:

- think about a restricted FA such as HL who are not independent, only advise on their own investment options, and do not recommend that their advisory clients establish investment accounts with third party wrap platforms to buy investments through a non-HL channel.

How could that FA ... which is not independent, so does not offer SL Wrap / Elevate as a platform and does not consider the investments that may be available on SL Wrap / Elevate when providing advice to its clients ... sign a declaration that they would act as intermediary to place their client's pension in a specific portfolio of investments with SL Wrap / Elevate, having given advice to the client on the portfolio, the platform, and the transfer?

They are not going to do that, because they do not act as intermediaries in placing pension business with SL.

By contrast, an Independent FA (IFA) that agreed with you moving your DB pension to SL Wrap / Elevate and buying investments there with the cash proceeds, because they believed that to be in your best interests, could act as intermediary for your new relationship with SL.

You say: "By what regulation are restricted FA's unable to confirm to a third party that they have given advice? Link, please."

But it should be obvious from the above that an FA which does not have a relationship with SL Wrap, and does not advise clients to select SL Wrap as the best platform on which to hold a portfolio of investments... because it has set itself up with internal compliance processes to only advise on its own products and not independently assess things on an unrestricted basis... would not go to SL Wrap and say that they would like to act as intermediary in a pension transfer transaction having advised the client on it. And unfortunately SL Wrap only takes pension transfer clients through intermediaries who have advised the client on the transfer, the platform and the investment choices.

The bottom line is you cannot force an investment advisor which does not even agree with you giving up your guaranteed pension benefits, act as intermediary for you in an investment transaction that they consider high risk, on a third party platform with whom they have no relationship. Especially when your advisor is a restricted advisor (which does not have a compliance process for considering the whole of the investment market) and runs their own rival platform which is a competitor to that third party investment provider. It is not going to happen. No I am not going to provide a 'link, please', because it is simple common sense that it will not happen.

[Deleted User]

In the case of urshieb and mine, we are not asking an investment adviser to "act as an intermediary" -but simply to acknowledge that they have provided advice.

Or, more simply, tell the truth.

I think some with vested interests on this board - 9,000 replies - cannot see the wood for the trees.

[Deleted User]

And, the only reason urshieb, myself, and countless others have had to buy advice is because we have been compelled to: financial advice is not a real profession, anyone can call themselves a financial adviser. As an outsider, I can see very clearly the fault lines and self-interest and potential abuse of trust in the process of pension transfers.

atush

ZingPowZing wrote: »

In the case of urshieb and mine, we are not asking an investment adviser to "act as an intermediary" -but simply to acknowledge that they have provided advice.

Or, more simply, tell the truth.

I think some with vested interests on this board - 9,000 replies - cannot see the wood for the trees.

Exactly.

You (and the OP)asked an 'investment adviser' ie an FA. NOT an IFA with transfer specialist qualifications. Which you both needed.

Since your poor choice earlier, and despite repeated advice that you used the wrong type of adviser, you continue on an anti IFA rant. Own your mistakes, and move on.

I have no vested interest, i was a Biologist.

Thrugelmir

ZingPowZing wrote: »

No, in my case, what was required was simply a signature to acknowledge that advice had been given.

Recently some sizable players have withdrawn from the market. Has yours subsequently?

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

In the case of urshieb and mine, we are not asking an investment adviser to "act as an intermediary" -but simply to acknowledge that they have provided advice.

In the post #42 above you mentioned Standard Life and said that if you understood it correctly, what you and urshieb were up against was the same issue. I couldn't see that Urshieb had mentioned Standard Life, but perhaps they were a provider you tried.

As you had mentioned Standard Life in #42, 'Son Of' then explained how Standard Life's main platform products could only be accessed via intermediaries, and how a restricted FA which did not consider solutions from across the whole market would not be able to act as intermediary and provide the necessary advice declaration as intermediary. You queried why a non-IFA (restricted and not offering SL products) would not provide advice and act as intermediary in relation to SL's products on SL's platform, so I explained it.

Now you are saying you don't want anyone to be an intermediary. Fine, the SL excursion was a useless sideshow, but it was you that brought them up, and then probed with some more questions about them.

I think some with vested interests on this board - 9,000 replies - cannot see the wood for the trees.

If that's a dig at me, I don't really have vested interests as I don't work for an IFA or restricted FA or a pension company or have an DB pension. I just understand some stuff about investments and regulated financial products as my career and those of my employees have depended on my comprehending the concepts.

I suppose you could say my 'vested interest' in discussions here is to preserve my online reputation for saying sensible or insightful things that help people get to grips with their problems or that others can learn from. In the 9000+ posts you mention, I was 'thanked' in over 70% of them. Fortunately I can maintain that 'batting average' by making sure that I only veer off track to be sarcastic or take the mickey in three in ten posts, while keeping the others serious and/or useful.

ZingPowZing wrote: »

And, the only reason urshieb, myself, and countless others have had to buy advice is because we have been compelled to: financial advice is not a real profession, anyone can call themselves a financial adviser.

If *anyone* could call themselves a financial adviser without the necessary training, exams, approval from the regulator etc, the regulator's job would certainly be harder. Perhaps there would be even more complaints for the ombudsman to deal with, but the ombudsman might not be able to enforce many of those complaints - because with no standards and no approved advisers, it would be difficult to say that the adviser hadn't done the things that a competent adviser should do.

My immediate thought is that if financial adviser is not a proper job, and it's pretty easy for anyone to become one, then perhaps the solution for you or the OP when faced with something that requires the signature of an adviser, is simply to convince a friend a family member to quickly become an adviser, or become one yourself, and sign it off.

The OP could become an adviser and provide advice on her husband's transfer and knows he would not dare complain or sue her for it later. Or you could become an adviser and advise the OP, you don't need to charge much money because the solution is always blindingly obvious and it's money for old rope. And there would clearly not be any kind of potential adverse comeback for just ticking boxes on a form to say you had dispensed the advice.