DB pension transfer

SonOf

 And this distinction to protect the adviser firm from the accompaniment of responsibilities and potential liability attending on having an insistent client on their record. 
Its more a case of some providers not wanting the transfers unless the adviser firm takes liability for everything.  

. And this despite their steepling fees supposedly justified by the need to protect themselves from the same. 
No, that is not the same thing.   The lower cost service you bought was all about checking whether it was suitable to transfer or not.    You never paid for the second stage as HL refused to go to that stage.   yet you wanted them to sign to say they did.

 The FCA have this to say about the scale of those fees:  https://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/fca-db-transfer-advice-shouldnt-cost-more-than-3500/a1254565
The FCA came up with that before the PI market imploded and premiums went up massively.   It is no longer realistic.  It also failed to take into account the employment of pre-checking compliance services (which are expensive) or the software (which is an add on cost normal adviser services would not pay. 

So this is necessary. Before engaging the PTS, you need him to confirm to you that regardless of whether his advice is positive, he will still provide you with confirmation (in a form acceptable to the ceding and receiving scheme) that the required advice has been obtained.
if you are buying the full advice process then you should get that anyway.  However, if you are just buying the lower cost service that checks whether you should transfer or not, expect the adviser to sign a form declaring that they have done things that they have not.
I would suggest that you ask the adviser that if they will still transact the transfer if the recommendation is to not transfer.

[Deleted User]

No, that is not the same thing.   The lower cost service you bought was all about checking whether it was suitable to transfer or not.    You never paid for the second stage as HL refused to go to that stage.   yet you wanted them to sign to say they did.  You have to stop repeating that lie SonOf. I did not buy any "lower cost" service. It is not possible to proceed to a recommendation with HL on that basis. I paid for the analysis, and the recommendation. As you know, because I repeated it often on posts that I know you have read and engaged with. I'm not particularly interested in revisiting my case. But you have to stop repeating that lie.

SonOf

You have to stop repeating that lie SonOf. I did not buy any "lower cost" service.
HL offer a two tier advice process.   You only paid for the first bit as they would not proceed to the second bit.    The FOS ruled that you knew that when you bought the service.   

[Deleted User]

SonOf said:

You have to stop repeating that lie SonOf. I did not buy any "lower cost" service.
HL offer a two tier advice process.   You only paid for the first bit as they would not proceed to the second bit.    The FOS ruled that you knew that when you bought the service.   

I have paid for both tiers of the advice, in full. It is not possible to get to the recommendation stage with Hargreaves Lansdown without committing to the full bill. As you know, because I corrected you on this point when you made the same allegation last week. You have to stop repeating this lie, SonOf.

[Deleted User]

I don't really think SonOf's lie is pertinent to this thread and I believe he is using it as a red herring to deflect from the situation now facing prospective transfer seekers like benny and Reeferjon.

But I can assure all readers that my case did not founder because I bought a partial or "low cost" service from HL, even if I could have done so. The dispute had nothing to do with that.

mgdavid

ZingPowZing said:

I don't really think SonOf's lie is pertinent to this thread and I believe he is using it as a red herring to deflect from the situation now facing prospective transfer seekers like benny and Reeferjon.

But I can assure all readers that my case did not founder because I bought a partial or "low cost" service from HL, even if I could have done so. The dispute had nothing to do with that.

1. Should be easy to check and confirm one way or the other as I think the case results are in the public domain.

2. I know who I believe

MarkCarnage

It is easy to check, both the case and the HL contractual terms for this kind of work. 
I too know who I believe. 

SonOf

mgdavid said:

ZingPowZing said:

I don't really think SonOf's lie is pertinent to this thread and I believe he is using it as a red herring to deflect from the situation now facing prospective transfer seekers like benny and Reeferjon.

But I can assure all readers that my case did not founder because I bought a partial or "low cost" service from HL, even if I could have done so. The dispute had nothing to do with that.

1. Should be easy to check and confirm one way or the other as I think the case results are in the public domain.

2. I know who I believe

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/250111/DRN9016765.pdf

HL charge £1250 plus VAT for a triage style advice.  Effectively stage 1 only - is it good to transfer or not - it does not go into the who/where and how stage.  That would be covered in stage 2 which has it's own charge of 2% of the transfer value.  ZPZ paid the £1250 plus VAT but not the 2%

Key bullet points raised:

• Hargreaves Lansdown had provided the Advice Declaration on 13 April 2018 even though the fee had not been settled. 
• Telephone calls between Mr W and Hargreaves Lansdown on 16 April 2018 highlighted that Hargreaves Lansdown couldn’t sign any new SIPP provider forms and couldn’t advise Mr W which SIPP provider he should use once Hargreaves Lansdown’s report had recommended not to proceed with a transfer.
• Hargreaves Lansdown was not obliged to find another SIPP provider if the advice was not to proceed with a transfer
  

Key point on decision:

• Given the agreement Mr W had entered into with Hargreaves Lansdown, which expressly said that it would not find alternative SIPP providers for him if it gave negative advice, I don’t think I can say that it should have done more. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to uphold this complaint.

On another post, ZPZ says:

No blame at all is attached to the alternative chosen provider: their compliance team quite rightly baulked at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork. Following on, I tried

EBS

Intelligent Money

James Hay

Old Mutual Wealth

AJ Bell

Curtis Banks

A number of those providers are intermediary providers and require the adviser to take on liability not just for the transfer advice (which HL were willing to do) but also confirm advice was given on the type of pension, the provider recommended and the investments recommended (which HL were not willing to do as they did not give that advice).
So, he does not blame the providers as he says "quite rightly baulked at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork."   Yet he blames HL.   This is despite them, quite rightly in my opinion, baulking at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork for a service he has not paid for.

Andrew31

SonOf said:

mgdavid said:

ZingPowZing said:

I don't really think SonOf's lie is pertinent to this thread and I believe he is using it as a red herring to deflect from the situation now facing prospective transfer seekers like benny and Reeferjon.

But I can assure all readers that my case did not founder because I bought a partial or "low cost" service from HL, even if I could have done so. The dispute had nothing to do with that.

1. Should be easy to check and confirm one way or the other as I think the case results are in the public domain.

2. I know who I believe

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/250111/DRN9016765.pdf

HL charge £1250 plus VAT for a triage style advice.  Effectively stage 1 only - is it good to transfer or not - it does not go into the who/where and how stage.  That would be covered in stage 2 which has it's own charge of 2% of the transfer value.  ZPZ paid the £1250 plus VAT but not the 2%

Key bullet points raised:

• Hargreaves Lansdown had provided the Advice Declaration on 13 April 2018 even though the fee had not been settled. 
• Telephone calls between Mr W and Hargreaves Lansdown on 16 April 2018 highlighted that Hargreaves Lansdown couldn’t sign any new SIPP provider forms and couldn’t advise Mr W which SIPP provider he should use once Hargreaves Lansdown’s report had recommended not to proceed with a transfer.
• Hargreaves Lansdown was not obliged to find another SIPP provider if the advice was not to proceed with a transfer
  

Key point on decision:

• Given the agreement Mr W had entered into with Hargreaves Lansdown, which expressly said that it would not find alternative SIPP providers for him if it gave negative advice, I don’t think I can say that it should have done more. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to uphold this complaint.

On another post, ZPZ says:

No blame at all is attached to the alternative chosen provider: their compliance team quite rightly baulked at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork. Following on, I tried

EBS

Intelligent Money

James Hay

Old Mutual Wealth

AJ Bell

Curtis Banks

A number of those providers are intermediary providers and require the adviser to take on liability not just for the transfer advice (which HL were willing to do) but also confirm advice was given on the type of pension, the provider recommended and the investments recommended (which HL were not willing to do as they did not give that advice).
So, he does not blame the providers as he says "quite rightly baulked at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork."   Yet he blames HL.   This is despite them, quite rightly in my opinion, baulking at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork for a service he has not paid for.

Case closed.   You've been schooled!

[Deleted User]

  "ZPZ paid the £1250 plus VAT but not the 2%" 
Yet again I have to reiterate: That is incorrect. I have paid for advice and the recommendation, in full, to the pound (HL rounded down the figure to £7608). 

The fee was never the issue for me, HL nor the Ombudsman. It did not affect the process at all, as SonOf continues to say in error.

There is a lot, a lot, I could say about the behaviour of SonOf in introducing my case to this thread, reflecting, than doubling down on his lie, and what that says about the imagined superiority and sense of entitlement characteristic of this corner of the financial services industry, but I'd rather spend time with real people.

Since I gave my word yesterday, it really shouldn't be necessary to provide proof but, if you do put me to the trouble of creating a web-page with a link that works from this forum, it is going to cost you in terms of a bet. Maybe Team Adviser Apologist can support SonOf with a whipround for the purpose. I know that bowlhead likes a bet. Let me know about that.


As far as this thread goes, no adviser has answered the OP. There is a list of one so far
A J Bell