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

[Deleted User]

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

Is that the working assumption now? You said on Thursday that they could not.
How does that square with the fact that HL refused before they read the wording?

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,

For the benefit of anyone in this predicament, which company is this? Does it exist, in fact?

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

I'll be happy when that is the case. In fact gemma888 was advised to contact HL with her DB pension on July28,
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76394159#Comment_76394159 #7
"they are very easy to listen to and helpful with people who don't understand how things work."
Nobody on the forum demurred.

Thrugelmir

ZingPowZing wrote: »

I'll be happy when that is the case. In fact gemma888 was advised to contact HL with her DB pension on July28,
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76394159#Comment_76394159 #7
"they are very easy to listen to and helpful with people who don't understand how things work."
Nobody on the forum demurred.

Following the FCA review the market has becomea very different place.

‘We have said repeatedly that, when advising on DB transfers, advisers should start from the position that a transfer is not suitable. It is deeply concerning and disappointing to see that transfers are still being recommended at the levels we have seen.

The FCA has already started visiting some firms, starting with those most active in the market. These visits will allow the FCA to complete a full assessment of the firms’ approach to DB advice, focusing on key aspects of firms’ business models and processes which could give rise to harm.

The FCA will also be writing to all firms where the potential for harm has been identified in the data the firm has supplied. This will set out the FCA's expectations and the actions firms should take.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-announces-further-action-defined-benefit-transfers

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

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

Is that the working assumption now? You said on Thursday that they could not.

They can sign it if it's true and if there are no rules to stop them. Though they may prefer not to.

For example I can jump, though I can't do it in the queen's bedroom due to not having authorisation. And may prefer not to.

You have in your files the declaration of advice that they gave you. So you know what they will confirm, although they shouldn't need to confirm it again because it is in the original declaration that you have. The form you asked them to sign was something that they couldn't confirm - or, if they had confirmed it by answering No to both questions, would have caused your transfer to fail.

How does that square with the fact that HL refused before they read the wording?

At risk of repeating myself:

Truth to tell, the adviser never even looked at what he refused to sign.

He had probably seen it before, or one like it from another firm, and knew that it would be asking him to acknowledge that he was helping an insistent client carry out a transaction and had fully documented the insistent client matters. As HL's policy in this area is not to help people carry out a transaction against advice, there was no point in him looking at it before politely declining. He just gave you a written declaration that he provided advice, and left it up to you to find a pensions firm that would be happy to proceed with that not-positive advice as documented by HL.

[Deleted User]

The FCA has already started visiting some firms, starting with those most active in the market. These visits will allow the FCA to complete a full assessment of the firms’ approach to DB advice, focusing on key aspects of firms’ business models and processes which could give rise to harm.
-Thrugelmir

May as well start with Hargreaves Lansdown; since the FCA are going round there anyway.

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

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,

For the benefit of anyone in this predicament, which company is this? Does it exist, in fact?

AJ Bell Youinvest is an example of a company that takes business from investors direct rather than needing an intermediary to transact. Therefore they could not require an intermediary to say that they were facilitating a transaction for their insistent client.

Per anecdotes from this forum they will allow transactions where advice has been received, without requiring the advice to be positive. I do not have first hand experience of whether that is still the case - my only transfers to them have been DC.

[Deleted User]

They can sign it if it's true and if there are no rules to stop them. Though they may prefer not to.

Except, bowlhead was explaining why they could not #46

He had probably seen it before, or one like it from another firm,

I don't believe that HL will sign a third party in any event but that is guesswork, as is bowlhead's statement.

[Deleted User]

bowlhead99 wrote: »

AJ Bell Youinvest is an example of a company that takes business from investors direct rather than needing an intermediary to transact. Therefore they could not require an intermediary to say that they were facilitating a transaction for their insistent client.

Per anecdotes from this forum they will allow transactions where advice has been received, without requiring the advice to be positive. I do not have first hand experience of whether that is still the case - my only transfers to them have been DC.[/QUOTE

Potentially a useful way out for someone in the predicament, if verified.]

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

bowlhead99 wrote: »

AJ Bell Youinvest is an example of a company that takes business from investors direct rather than needing an intermediary to transact. Therefore they could not require an intermediary to say that they were facilitating a transaction for their insistent client.

Per anecdotes from this forum they will allow transactions where advice has been received, without requiring the advice to be positive. I do not have first hand experience of whether that is still the case - my only transfers to them have been DC.

Potentially a useful way out for someone in the predicament, if verified.

The last time I saw it come up was in your other thread a couple of months ago when xylophone mentioned it - not from the perspective of a customer but just that they had heard that they accepted transfers without positive advice ; the firm has been mentioned on threads here before.

Also companies such as Virgin offer a stakeholder pension (and I understand stakeholder pensions don't have the luxury of being able to turn down incoming transfers, so long as they receive the information they need). Virgin deals with customers direct, rather than requiring an intermediary on the transaction, so any request for information about advice received could not require the adviser to say that the adviser was documenting the client as an insistent client in relation to the transfer - Virgin should not require the same language as your recipient pension firm demanded.

coyrls

ZingPowZing wrote: »

How does that square with the fact that HL refused before they read the wording?

Because they knew that the firm asking for the signature only accepts business via an intermediary and that they could not be the intermediary (because they do not place business with other firms).

[Deleted User]

Because they knew that the firm asking for the signature only accepts business via an intermediary and that they could not be the intermediary (because they do not place business with other firms).

Maybe. But the layman doesn't. And it's not something Hargreaves Lansdown tell a client when they are pitching for a DB pension, in my experience. Sure, it's there in 10pt new-roman on the back of an A4 sheet of paper "What you should know about transferring a DB pension," slipped between the rest of their handouts but, for obvious reasons, HL won't mention the difficulties faced by a client whom they take down that path: less time, less choice, less protection,no assistance -Ladies and gentlemen, introducing "the Hargreaves Lansdown experience."

I know informed people on here will continue to say "caveat emptor" but for the general public it represents a miserable experience, like buying a television and finding you have to take the back off to change channel.