DB pension transfer

SonOf

There is no misinformation from me, only from SonOf; the fact is that HL will not sign a transfer-in form of another provider.
That is not in dispute.  However, there is no need for an adviser to sign a declaration from another provider unless the adviser is also placing the business with the provider.  

That wasn't what Xafinity wanted from HL. What Xafinity wanted from HL was an adviser signature on page 4 of their application form from to confirm either
1. Did you recommend the safeguarded transfer(s) detailed in the form?
2. if no to 1. above, have you advised against the transfer in writing (including having carried out a full analysis as required by the FCA rules) and have you recorded this as an insistent customer? 

Xafinity were not asking for advisers to take responsibility for anything more. 
Read that text again  It says "and have you recorded this as an insistent customer?".   That means Xafinity were asking HL to take on liability for an insistent client sale.  HL did not record you as an insistent client as they were not placing the business and therefore should not be classing you as an insistent client.   Xafinity were asking them to agree to something they had not done.   Xafinity shoved an extra declaration on their own form to try and pass liability for provider/product selection to HL. 

Other providers you mention included the likes of Old Mutual Wealth for example.  They only transact through intermediaries and require the adviser firm submitting the business to take on the liability for the sale (insistent or otherwise).   Hence they they wanted their forms completing.

HappyHarry

ZingPowZing said:

HappyHarry said:

If that's recent, then they are breaking FCA rules. A client could have a field day with that.

(Edit: Responding to ZPZ's comment above)

It was March 2018. 
I have just looked at the Xafinity application form and it has been amended from the above. Now it needs a positive recommendation; it didn't then.  Another one gone, sadly. I don't know now who will accept insistent customer DB transfers, AJ Bell excepted. 

That timing makes sense. The FCA updated their rules in October 2018, see PS18/20.

There should now be no need to ask if the adviser will sign the confirmation form, as they now have to if they advise on the transfer.

[Deleted User]

"Read that text again  It says "and have you recorded this as an insistent customer?".   That means Xafinity were asking HL to take on liability for an insistent client sale.  HL did not record you as an insistent client as they were not placing the business and therefore should not be classing you as an insistent client. "
Any client who insists on transferring against a recommendation is, by definition, an insistent client. So what SonOf is suggesting : that a financial adviser or pension transfer specialist can take a client's money, on the understanding that the client has the option of proceeding as an insistent client in the event of a negative recommendation, then justifiably refuse to confirm the client's status and shuffle off the liability to a pension provider is underhand behaviour at best.

So it is good and proper that law has been changed to prevent this, as HappyHarry says it has. The trouble is that it makes a negative recommendation more likely, as financial advisers will be under pressure to record more and more negative recommendations, further compromising the process.

[Deleted User]

Which pension firms now are prepared to take on insistent clients?
Would be a good question to ask your financial adviser upfront.

HappyHarry

ZingPowZing said:

Which pension firms now are prepared to take on insistent clients?
Would be a good question to ask your financial adviser upfront.

Why would they know? I don't, and I have provided recommendations not to transfer.
If the adviser has given advice not to transfer, then they won't assist an insistent client any further than signing the confirmation. What the client does after that is up to them.

If a client who I advised to retain their DB pension asked me who they could transfer to as an insistent client, I would not tell them even if I knew, as I would worry that I could then be implicated in a complaint.

MarkCarnage

Which pension firms now are prepared to take on insistent clients?

Do you mean platforms or IFAs?

Probably very few of either now, and rapidly becoming even less. See the story I posted from the FT just now. 

[Deleted User]

 " However, there is no need for an adviser to sign a declaration from another provider unless the adviser is also placing the business with the provider.  " - SonOf. 
 Is that current FCA guideline practice? Seems to contradict what another IFA says upthread.

[Deleted User]

Why would they know? I don't, and I have provided recommendations not to transfer.
If the adviser has given advice not to transfer, then they won't assist an insistent client any further than signing the confirmation. What the client does after that is up to them.
So, let me get this straight,
a) the first principle of the pension act is the freedom of the consumer to take charge of his pension.
b) for DB pensions, the FCA impose the services of an adviser into the process.
c) the adviser doesn't even know, or seemingly care, if he makes a negative recommendation, whether it is possible for the consumer to proceed,

If a client who I advised to retain their DB pension asked me who they could transfer to as an insistent client, I would not tell them even if I knew, as I would worry that I could then be implicated in a complaint.
The absolute state of this process now.

lisboa84

What would be the most common red flags / green lights that an IFA would be looking out for when deciding upon a clients DB transfer request? Is it all about whether or not the client is willing to give full investment control to the IFA?

Reeferjon

So, I'm actually doing my diligence around a DBS transfer, I cant even find an online IFA who will even look at a DBS out of fifteen ,eight replied No, and rest....... still waiting.
Research is mind-blowing, its an mess, the whole industry seems to be torn between keeping the annuity engine greased, taking a nice profit from a very captive market for advisers or not touching it for fear of being sued.

Not much help for a lay-man who just wants to control his pension within his own SIPP.