DB Pension transfer - IFA costs

[Deleted User]

"You should consider a formal complaint for that.  The confirmation that advice has been given should have been included as part of the service, so you shouldn't have needed to pay twice.  I believe this was the subject of an Ombudsman case a while back which resulted in a complaint being upheld for the client." -Aegis.

Thank you, Aegis. The Ombudsman found against me. My original adviser was a Hargreaves Lansdown pension transfer analyst.
In retrospect, there was never a chance that he would make a positive recommendation, although he led me to believe that my case was "in the balance." They get paid either way and have the process all boxed-off in the small print. HL do post a declaration but all receiving firms require an adviser signature on their transfer in form (otherwise it looks bad in the event that there is a future claim) with the exception of AJ Bell; that I know of now, but not then.

SonOf

Aegis said:

ZingPowZing said:

happyandcontented said:

We are at the beginning of this process and we feel as though it is a fight, not a process of us receiving advice.

ZPZ do you self manage your funds now?

I do, and am very happy, but I had to be persistent. 
Do ensure at the outset that, in the event of a negative recommendation, your adviser will sign a declaration (simply to the fact that he has provided advice) on the pension transfer form of the chosen provider. Mine would not and I hired another FA to effect the transfer, while still having to pay the fee of the first.

You should consider a formal complaint for that.  The confirmation that advice has been given should have been included as part of the service, so you shouldn't have needed to pay twice.  I believe this was the subject of an Ombudsman case a while back which resulted in a complaint being upheld for the client.

Aegis,  there is a thread on it and the FOS decision was published.    When you read the thread and the FOS decision, HL were not doing anything wrong.       
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/242386/DRN2228635.pdf

Firstly ZPZ chose to use the lower cost initial value analysis and not their full transfer service.  This s sufficient to get a should you/shouldn't you decision but not to do the actual transfer itself.   They gave an unsuitable to transfer recommendation and would not accept the transfer in to their own platform.  However, they would provide written confirmation that regulated advice had been given.

ZPZ went to providers that require an intermediary (he listed some of them and most were intermediary providers) or needed a "good advice to transfer" declaration.  HL refused to sign the provider application taking on liability for advice on the product sale as they had not actually given advice on the product.  And they wouldnt sign the provider form where a positive decision was required.  HL were willing to put in writing they had provided regulated advice on the DB pension but not take on liability for the sale of the pension chosen by the OP.     So, quite understandable in that respect and the FOS agreed.

ffacoffipawb

Aegis said:

ZingPowZing said:

happyandcontented said:

We are at the beginning of this process and we feel as though it is a fight, not a process of us receiving advice.

ZPZ do you self manage your funds now?

I do, and am very happy, but I had to be persistent. 
Do ensure at the outset that, in the event of a negative recommendation, your adviser will sign a declaration (simply to the fact that he has provided advice) on the pension transfer form of the chosen provider. Mine would not and I hired another FA to effect the transfer, while still having to pay the fee of the first.

You should consider a formal complaint for that.  The confirmation that advice has been given should have been included as part of the service, so you shouldn't have needed to pay twice.  I believe this was the subject of an Ombudsman case a while back which resulted in a complaint being upheld for the client.

He lost the case and the Ombudsman found in favour of Hargreaves Lansdown.

i think.

[Deleted User]

ffacowfipawb, you are correct, the Ombudsman found in favour of HL. But I certainly wouldn't put off anyone caught in the same trap from appealing to their office; it is so ramshackle that I get the impression a claim made on a different day may produce a different result.

SonOf, I have no objection to you setting up your stall and, as far as this forum allows, touting for business every day (we all have to live).

But I do object when you mistake the facts of my case:

"Firstly ZPZ chose to use the lower cost initial value analysis and not their full transfer service. This s sufficient to get a should you/shouldn't you decision but not to do the actual transfer itself.  "  
Wrong on two counts: firstly:in all cases, their process in two halves, I paid the maximum for both. Their promise is that the client will be given "a pretty good idea" whether a transfer is suitable after the analysis stage; in my case they said it was "in the balance", and I was persuaded to commit to the recommendation.

ZPZ went to providers that require an intermediary (he listed some of them and most were intermediary providers) or needed a "good advice to transfer" declaration.  HL refused to sign the provider application taking on liability for advice on the product sale as they had not actually given advice on the product. And they wouldnt sign the provider form where a positive decision was required. 
Wrong again. The declaration that HL refused to sign was to verify that they had provided advice not to transfer.

SonOf

SonOf, I have no objection to you setting up your stall and, as far as this forum allows, touting for business every day (we all have to live).
Please provide evidence that I have touted for business.     You can't so you should apologise.

Wrong on two counts: firstly:in all cases, their process in two halves, I paid the maximum for both. Their promise is that the client will be given "a pretty good idea" whether a transfer is suitable after the analysis stage; in my case they said it was "in the balance", and I was persuaded to commit to the recommendation.
That is not what the FOS decision says.  HL have a two tier basis and only proceed to the second stage if it is likely that you are going to get a positive decision.   The FOS decision indicated you only paid the first stage.

Wrong again. The declaration that HL refused to sign was to verify that they had provided advice not to transfer.
Your list of providers you approached included those that only do business via intermediaries.   They require the intermediary to accept liability for the sale of that pension.   No firm is going to accept liability for that if they have not given advice on it.   This is why HL would not sign their form.  However, the FOS decision confirms that HL were willing to put in writing that you had received regulated advice on the DB pension.   That is all that is legally required and should be fine if you went to a DIY provider that accepts negative recommendations on DB transfers (some DIY providers will only accept positive recommendations.  Some do not care as long as you have had advice).

[Deleted User]

That is not what the FOS decision says.  HL have a two tier basis and only proceed to the second stage if it is likely that you are going to get a positive decision.   The FOS decision indicated you only paid the first stage.

Doubly wrong. I paid for both, and HL indicated that my case was "in the balance." Otherwise, obviously, I would not have proceeded. 

Your list of providers you approached included those that only do business via intermediaries.   They require the intermediary to accept liability for the sale of that pension.   No firm is going to accept liability for that if they have not given advice on it.   This is why HL would not sign their form.  However, the FOS decision confirms that HL were willing to put in writing that you had received regulated advice on the DB pension.   That is all that is legally required and should be fine if you went to a DIY provider that accepts negative recommendations on DB transfers (some DIY providers will only accept positive recommendations.  Some do not care as long as you have had advice).
That is a wilful misrepresentation. There is only one firm who will proceed without an adviser's signature on their transfer-in form and that is AJ Bell. 

Please provide evidence that I have touted for business.     You can't so you should apologise.
You drop your price list into whomever's conversation weekly! The consistent narrative of your interventions is that the client could do better if only she knocked at the door of advisers like you ( if only there was a way she could PM you). 

ffacoffipawb

ZingPowZing said:

That is not what the FOS decision says.  HL have a two tier basis and only proceed to the second stage if it is likely that you are going to get a positive decision.   The FOS decision indicated you only paid the first stage.

Doubly wrong. I paid for both, and HL indicated that my case was "in the balance." Otherwise, obviously, I would not have proceeded. 

Your list of providers you approached included those that only do business via intermediaries.   They require the intermediary to accept liability for the sale of that pension.   No firm is going to accept liability for that if they have not given advice on it.   This is why HL would not sign their form.  However, the FOS decision confirms that HL were willing to put in writing that you had received regulated advice on the DB pension.   That is all that is legally required and should be fine if you went to a DIY provider that accepts negative recommendations on DB transfers (some DIY providers will only accept positive recommendations.  Some do not care as long as you have had advice).
That is a wilful misrepresentation. There is only one firm who will proceed without an adviser's signature on their transfer-in form and that is AJ Bell. 

Please provide evidence that I have touted for business.     You can't so you should apologise.
You drop your price list into whomever's conversation weekly! The consistent narrative of your interventions is that the client could do better if only she knocked at the door of advisers like you ( if only there was a way she could PM you). 

I don't agree that SonOf has been touting for business. I have probably read most, if not all, of his (or her) posts and could never come to such a conclusion.

[Deleted User]

 
By comparison, one we did earlier this week was 0.16% for platform, 0.25% for funds and 0.5% for adviser.   IFA platforms have been getting cheaper over the last year and 0.1x%-0.2x% is more typical nowadays.
Qed. 
This is from another thread, an  hour ago.

ffacoffipawb

ZingPowZing said:

 
By comparison, one we did earlier this week was 0.16% for platform, 0.25% for funds and 0.5% for adviser.   IFA platforms have been getting cheaper over the last year and 0.1x%-0.2x% is more typical nowadays.
Qed. 
This is from another thread, an  hour ago.

I dont call that touting for business.

[Deleted User]

Amended glib response