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

SonOf

ZingPowZing wrote: »

If HL won't record a client as an insistent client then how and with whom can that client facilitate a transfer?

Either use an IFA that can use third parties as the provider and record it as an insistent client or use a direct to consumer provider that does not use intermediaries.

[Deleted User]

If a client has to hire an IFA after using Hargreaves Lansdown, the better course would be, don't use Hargreaves Lansdown.

SonOf

ZingPowZing wrote: »

If a client has to hire an IFA after using Hargreaves Lansdown, the better course would be, don't use Hargreaves Lansdown.

Or use a provider that does not require an intermediary. However, using an IFA would rather than an FA would have avoided the issue you had. The general rule of thumb with any investment-related issue on this site is either DIY or use an IFA. Never use an FA.

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

Or use a provider that does not require an intermediary. However, using an IFA would rather than an FA would have avoided the issue you had. The general rule of thumb with any investment-related issue on this site is either DIY or use an IFA. Never use an FA.

Good.
Had I started reading this forum a couple of years ago I could have saved myself a deal of trouble.
As it is, I joined the forum to warn readers not to use Hargreaves Lansdown if they are thinking of a DB pension transfer. Learning today that not only are HL exempt from guidance to sign a declaration on a transfer form but also, potentially, not recording insistent clients, only underscores that message.

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

As it is, I joined the forum to warn readers not to use Hargreaves Lansdown if they are thinking of a DB pension transfer. Learning today that not only are HL exempt from guidance to sign a declaration on a transfer form but also, potentially, not recording insistent clients, only underscores that message.

The message is not really HL-specific. The message from SonOf, which seems sound, is that if you are pursuing a transfer, best to use an IFA rather than a non 'I' FA, because they will have all options on the table, whereas FAs will only put you in their own products and if you don't like their advice you will be on your own to find other people's products to use.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately misstating the process to make HL sound bad or just misunderstanding it, but:

- I don't think it's correct that HL are 'exempt from guidance' to sign declarations on transfer forms. They provide their own declaration from their specialist that advice has been given. They could provide a declaration on someone else's paper, if the wording was suitable - but as SonOf mentioned, the wording you provided did not seem to be. They are not going to be able to sign something that says they are helping you complete a transaction in someone else's product that you want to do and they can't facilitate.

- They have the same obligations for dealing with insistent clients as everyone else, within FCA's COBS 9, so there is no exemption from recording insistent clients. However, unlike an IFA, they don't offer all products - and you can't 'insistently' make them carry out a transaction in a product they don't offer - so you are less likely to become their insistent client.

I'm sure SonOf or an IFA will correct me if I've misunderstood.

[Deleted User]

- I don't think it's correct that HL are 'exempt from guidance' to sign declarations on transfer forms. They provide their own declaration from their specialist that advice has been given. They could provide a declaration on someone else's paper, if the wording was suitable - but as SonOf mentioned, the wording you provided did not seem to be. They are not going to be able to sign something that says they are helping you complete a transaction in someone else's product that you want to do and they can't facilitate.

Again, they were not asked to "help", merely confirm, on the form of a third party, that they had carried out the work. If I understand Son Of - HL do not have to conform to guidance that advisers must sign such forms because they are on a different footing to IFAs.


They have the same obligations for dealing with insistent clients as everyone else, within FCA's COBS 9, so there is no exemption from recording insistent clients. However, unlike an IFA, they don't offer all products - and you can't 'insistently' make them carry out a transaction in a product they don't offer - so you are less likely to become their insistent client.

In which case the field is narrowed still further for anyone unfortunate enough to arrive at that position with HL.

That's a double disadvantage. Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown.

coyrls

The irony of this multi-week discussion is that everybody agrees that you shouldn't use Hargreaves Lansdown for advice on a DB transfer.

Murielson

These guys any use? Free and impartial government guidance in right circumstances

https://www.pensionwise.gov.uk/en/pension-type-tool/question-1

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

- I don't think it's correct that HL are 'exempt from guidance' to sign declarations on transfer forms. They provide their own declaration from their specialist that advice has been given. They could provide a declaration on someone else's paper, if the wording was suitable - but as SonOf mentioned, the wording you provided did not seem to be. They are not going to be able to sign something that says they are helping you complete a transaction in someone else's product that you want to do and they can't facilitate.

Again, they were not asked to "help", merely confirm, on the form of a third party, that they had carried out the work. If I understand Son Of - HL do not have to conform to guidance that advisers must sign such forms because they are on a different footing to IFAs.

HL can sign a form if it's factual and in line with the declaration of advice that they gave you.

What SonOf explained in post #69 is that it would likely not have been factual.

The second question on the form was to confirm that the transaction had been advised against in writing AND that you were being recorded as an insistent client.

They could not do that, because they were not carrying out a transaction or facilitating a transaction for an insistent client. As you said yourself - they were not even asked to 'help' in executing the transaction.

If they are not carrying out the transaction, or facilitating/helping make the transaction happen (because they're unable to act with agency in relation to investments in third party products because they only offer their own products), then they will not be able to say they're doing this transaction for their insistent client and they have documented/ recorded that insistent client.

What you are probably getting hung up on is your self description as an insistent person, using some layman's / dictionary definition of 'insistent'. You mean that whatever you are told, you know what you want and you will go and do it - you insist that it happens.

Whereas, the FCA definition of an insistent client is
1) the firm has given the client a personal recommendation;
(2) the client decides to enter into a transaction which is different from that recommended by the firm in the personal recommendation; and
(3) the client wishes the firm to facilitate that transaction

In carrying out or facilitating the transaction, the firm would classify the client as an insistent client, as he was engaging them to do a transaction they advised against.

As you mentioned, you are not engaging them to do a transaction they advised against. Because, (a) you say you do not intend for them to 'help' with the transaction, and (b) even if you did want to engage them to carry out a transaction, their business is not set up to do a transaction that invests client assets in a third party product that they don't offer.

So it would be incorrect for them answer 'yes' to the question on the form that says they have provided written advice and recorded you as an insistent client, because you're not an insistent client (a client for whom they are carrying out a transaction against their advice), because they're not carrying out a transaction for you against their advice.

As SonOf mentioned back in #69, the fault is with the form, which requires them to confirm they documented an insistent client. It doesn't tie up to what they have done because they are not acting on behalf of an insistent client. As you say, they are not acting for you at all. So they haven't signed it. You would need to instead have them re-word the form, or find yourself a different pension company that would accept a direct DIY (non intermediary) client for a protected rights transfer. HL told you up front that they would not help you find such firms.

That other pension company that you could find that deals direct with DIY retail clients would not need an adviser to say they were setting up the transaction for an insistent client, because with a direct-to-customer pension firm, an adviser does not need to have the agency. Instead the customer could approach them direct and provide them with the declaration from the adviser that they'd received advice, (not that the adviser was acting for them) and the deal would be done.

They have the same obligations for dealing with insistent clients as everyone else, within FCA's COBS 9, so there is no exemption from recording insistent clients. However, unlike an IFA, they don't offer all products - and you can't 'insistently' make them carry out a transaction in a product they don't offer - so you are less likely to become their insistent client.

In which case the field is narrowed still further for anyone unfortunate enough to arrive at that position with HL.

That's a double disadvantage.

It seems to be the same disadvantage. They can't and won't act for you to facilitate a transaction in somebody else's product that they don't offer.

They'll merely sell you the advice and provide their factual written documentation that they did that.

coyrls wrote: »

The irony of this multi-week discussion is that everybody agrees that you shouldn't use Hargreaves Lansdown for advice on a DB transfer.

Yep!

bowlhead99

Murielson wrote: »

These guys any use? Free and impartial government guidance in right circumstances

https://www.pensionwise.gov.uk/en/pension-type-tool/question-1

Unfortunately the OP is not looking for someone to give them some free guidance. They are looking for paid regulated financial advice from a regulated professional with the right qualification to be able to confirm to the pension provider that they've had that.

Speaking to a public sector employee who could guide them toward a choice, doesn't cut it. It could be useful for them in educating themselves towards coming to a conclusion - but they have already formed a conclusion anyway based on as much information as they think they want or need. From their perspective, now they just need specific tailored advice to be signed off along with the requisite supporting documents, to be able to go ahead with the choice.