DB pension transfer

SonOf

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). 

If you did indeed pay for the second stage (which I do not recall you stating previously - however, you pollute so many threads with your negativity, it is hard to tell) then I do have a lot more sympathy for you.      A triage service is designed to keep the cost lower initially without going into the provider/product/investment stage and incurring higher charges.  It is meant to be generic according to the FCA  and that prevents provider/product type/funds etc being recommended.   It gives you the chance to get a view on suitability to transfer or not  without incurring the second stage costs that an actual transfer would incur.      The FOS decision clearly states that it did not go beyond the triage stage.
 
However, putting aside the cost (as you say it wasnt an issue for you), if HL did not provide advice on provider, investments or product type then they still cannot sign a declaration that asks them to confirm that they have done those things when they have not.   In that respect you are still being unrealistic.

[Deleted User]

I stated these facts in my first post and many times since.

I could not care less for SonOfs sympathy. 

What I care about is the underlying attitude - the level of self-importance and self-aggrandisement  - whereby a financial adviser, despite being repeatedly and regularly corrected, feels entitled to assert that he knows - better than the person who paid the bill! - how much that bill was!

I have plenty to say about the self-serving nature of posts made by financial advisers and their apologists, especially those who cultivate a thin veneer of impartiality; another day. 

Andrew31

MarkCarnage

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). 

Why did you pay for advice that you didn't get then? And appear happy to do so? Unless you decided to pay for part two before you knew the outcome of part one. Which seems strange. 

This is what HL key facts and terms of business says in respect of DB transfer costs:

How much does this service cost?

The Specialist Transfer Value Analysis costs £1,250 plus VAT.

If you decide to proceed to a recommendation following the

analysis. The following charges will apply and are based on the value

of the funds being transferred:

• 2% of the first £200,000

• 1% of the balance between £200,000 and £1,000,000

• 0% of the balance over £1,000,000

[Deleted User]

"In that respect you are still being unrealistic."  As I told Mark Carnage a few days ago, I have long since made peace with the decision of the ombudsman. It was SonOf who brought my case into the thread, as a deflection.

"If you did indeed pay" -  Just can't help yourself, can you SonOf? "If".  I'm not wasting more time explaining, everything has already been covered elsewhere. If you still think you know better than the person affected, it's simple, put up a stake to find out.
I'll check later in the week.

xylophone

Apropos of PI Insurance, I saw this in the Mail today.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-8017521/Pension-pots-locked-financial-advisers-afford-insurance.html

MarkCarnage

Looks like a fairly shameless copy of the FT article the day before! 

DairyQueen

ZingPowZing said:

As I told Mark Carnage a few days ago, I have long since made peace with the decision of the ombudsman. It was SonOf who brought my case into the thread, as a deflection.

For me this statement illustrates two specific issues.

Firstly, ZPZ's tone and posts belie any reconciliation with the outcome of his case.

How many threads has he participated in other than those specific to DB transfers and IFA advice? Has he ever sought guidance or provided a nuanced opinion? Or requested further info on a poster's circumstances before pronouncing? He appears to be on a one-person mission to subvert any guidance that differs from his view on his pet subjects: unconditional support for DB transfers, IFAs and HL.  These issues (plus the occasional foray into bullish comments on high risk portfolio allocations) appear to consume him.

Secondly, the rights/wrongs of ZPZ's experience with HL are of marginal interest to forumites like me other than they appear to explain his bias.  If I recall correctly ZPZ's intro to the site was an anti-HL rant and he appears to have posted with an anti-advisor agenda ever since.

My concern is that, if not challenged, others will be influenced by ZPZ's unconditional reinforcement of suggestions that may be wholly against their best interests. I suspect that I'm not alone.

The IFAs on the forum take on a great responsibility. They are well aware of the weight given to the information they provide. They are also aware that they are 'speaking' to a large and diverse audience. Their posts are aimed at addressing a bigger audience than just the thread OP.

My take is that SonOf is not challenging ZPZ (as the latter seems to believe) for reasons of self-interest. ZPZ consistently offers views that are not proposed in the best interests of the poster (as he does so before he knows anything about their circumstances and often contrary to conventional wisdom). He is not measured nor offers alternatives. Instead he seeks to undermine the guidance offered by others, and especially by those IFAs who consistently disagree with him. The accusation of self-interest is typical of this.

IMO SonOf is therefore placed in a position whereby he must use the detail of ZPZ's case in order to reveal the driver behind ZPZ's very targeted posts.

SonOf could back-off and allow ZPZ to continue the campaign but he is prepared to take the time to challenge in the interests of forum members who may be wrongly influenced by ZPZ's categoric dismissal of any information or guidance that doesn't fit with his very specific experience or worldview.

A final impression. ZPZ could be a valuable contributor if only he could get over that case and use this forum as a means to help others and himself rather than as a medium through which to avenge perceived wrongs.

SonOf

My concern is that, if not challenged, others will be influenced by ZPZ's unconditional reinforcement of suggestions that may be wholly against their best interests. I suspect that I'm not alone.
That is exactly why I pick it up on each of the threads that ZPZ mentions it.   It is not down to some personal beef I have with him.    
The negativity based on misunderstanding does not help other people who are looking for guidance.  Without correction and clarification, the thread starter may not realise that ZPZ has a particular point of view that comes with bias and misunderstanding and a refusal to want to understand.  I would never need to mention it again if it wasn't brought up repeatedly on threads started by people who don't know any better and won't know the context behind the posts.

Andrew31

DairyQueen said:

ZingPowZing said:

As I told Mark Carnage a few days ago, I have long since made peace with the decision of the ombudsman. It was SonOf who brought my case into the thread, as a deflection.

For me this statement illustrates two specific issues.

Firstly, ZPZ's tone and posts belie any reconciliation with the outcome of his case.

How many threads has he participated in other than those specific to DB transfers and IFA advice? Has he ever sought guidance or provided a nuanced opinion? Or requested further info on a poster's circumstances before pronouncing? He appears to be on a one-person mission to subvert any guidance that differs from his view on his pet subjects: unconditional support for DB transfers, IFAs and HL.  These issues (plus the occasional foray into bullish comments on high risk portfolio allocations) appear to consume him.

Secondly, the rights/wrongs of ZPZ's experience with HL are of marginal interest to forumites like me other than they appear to explain his bias.  If I recall correctly ZPZ's intro to the site was an anti-HL rant and he appears to have posted with an anti-advisor agenda ever since.

My concern is that, if not challenged, others will be influenced by ZPZ's unconditional reinforcement of suggestions that may be wholly against their best interests. I suspect that I'm not alone.

The IFAs on the forum take on a great responsibility. They are well aware of the weight given to the information they provide. They are also aware that they are 'speaking' to a large and diverse audience. Their posts are aimed at addressing a bigger audience than just the thread OP.

My take is that SonOf is not challenging ZPZ (as the latter seems to believe) for reasons of self-interest. ZPZ consistently offers views that are not proposed in the best interests of the poster (as he does so before he knows anything about their circumstances and often contrary to conventional wisdom). He is not measured nor offers alternatives. Instead he seeks to undermine the guidance offered by others, and especially by those IFAs who consistently disagree with him. The accusation of self-interest is typical of this.

IMO SonOf is therefore placed in a position whereby he must use the detail of ZPZ's case in order to reveal the driver behind ZPZ's very targeted posts.

SonOf could back-off and allow ZPZ to continue the campaign but he is prepared to take the time to challenge in the interests of forum members who may be wrongly influenced by ZPZ's categoric dismissal of any information or guidance that doesn't fit with his very specific experience or worldview.

A final impression. ZPZ could be a valuable contributor if only he could get over that case and use this forum as a means to help others and himself rather than as a medium through which to avenge perceived wrongs.

Here Here!