Pension mis selling

dunstonh

Claims of negligence have to be raised within 3 or 6 years (which is where the regulator get their timebar rules from) subject to a maximum period of 15 years from the negligent act or omission.    The regulator chose not to match law on the 15 year period.

 and there is the Judicial Review of his decision which I still have two months to complete

The cost of a juridical review is expensive. A one-day hearing is likely to incur costs of £30,000 to £40,000 or more. (sometimes much more).  The costs of the other party can be ordered against you as the losing side generally pays the costs of the winning side.    So, are you ready to risk that?

Plus, do you have the grounds for a judicial review?

Error of law?, Procedural Impropriety?, Irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness?, Abuse of power generally?

In 2017, the Court emphasised that FOS’s discretion is very wide under s.228(2) FSMA to determine what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.  So, the volume of cases heard is not large as they usually fail to get past the first stage.

You need to seek specialist legal advice if you plan to go down that route.

Dox

Thrugelmir said:

PENSION_MUG said:

The original pension was guaranteed at 6000 your right my salary at the time was probably about 8-9000 a year, 

If you had worked for the same company until you retired perhaps. The £6,000 would have increased by inflation over the past 30 odd years. That would equivalent to nearer £18,000 now. Without factoring in any payrises. The transfer value appears to bear no correlation to annuity rates back then either. 

It could correlate with a hugely aggressive investment strategy on the part of the trustees, plus high interest rates, which allowing for 30+ years of growth....

OP, I presume you've had free, impartial help from the Pensions Advisory Service? If not, I'd get someone there to look at that statement. See https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk

Thrugelmir

Dox said:

Thrugelmir said:

PENSION_MUG said:

The original pension was guaranteed at 6000 your right my salary at the time was probably about 8-9000 a year, 

If you had worked for the same company until you retired perhaps. The £6,000 would have increased by inflation over the past 30 odd years. That would equivalent to nearer £18,000 now. Without factoring in any payrises. The transfer value appears to bear no correlation to annuity rates back then either. 

It could correlate with a hugely aggressive investment strategy on the part of the trustees, plus high interest rates, which allowing for 30+ years of growth....

Not how DB schemes work. 

Dox

Thrugelmir said:

Dox said:

Thrugelmir said:

PENSION_MUG said:

The original pension was guaranteed at 6000 your right my salary at the time was probably about 8-9000 a year, 

If you had worked for the same company until you retired perhaps. The £6,000 would have increased by inflation over the past 30 odd years. That would equivalent to nearer £18,000 now. Without factoring in any payrises. The transfer value appears to bear no correlation to annuity rates back then either. 

It could correlate with a hugely aggressive investment strategy on the part of the trustees, plus high interest rates, which allowing for 30+ years of growth....

Not how DB schemes work. 

These factors are normally taken into account when assessing the basis for calculating transfer values - they certainly were relevant at the time OP is talking about.

Brynsam

Thrugelmir said:

Dox said:

Thrugelmir said:

PENSION_MUG said:

The original pension was guaranteed at 6000 your right my salary at the time was probably about 8-9000 a year, 

If you had worked for the same company until you retired perhaps. The £6,000 would have increased by inflation over the past 30 odd years. That would equivalent to nearer £18,000 now. Without factoring in any payrises. The transfer value appears to bear no correlation to annuity rates back then either. 

It could correlate with a hugely aggressive investment strategy on the part of the trustees, plus high interest rates, which allowing for 30+ years of growth....

Not how DB schemes work. 

These can impact on the amount of any transfer value offered and the high interest rates would have been especially pertinent in the late 1980s/1990s.

Dox

Brynsam said:

Thrugelmir said:

Dox said:

Thrugelmir said:

PENSION_MUG said:

The original pension was guaranteed at 6000 your right my salary at the time was probably about 8-9000 a year, 

If you had worked for the same company until you retired perhaps. The £6,000 would have increased by inflation over the past 30 odd years. That would equivalent to nearer £18,000 now. Without factoring in any payrises. The transfer value appears to bear no correlation to annuity rates back then either. 

It could correlate with a hugely aggressive investment strategy on the part of the trustees, plus high interest rates, which allowing for 30+ years of growth....

Not how DB schemes work. 

These can impact on the amount of any transfer value offered and the high interest rates would have been especially pertinent in the late 1980s/1990s.

Quite. The advising actuary would have taken into account the expected growth of the transfer value, based on the prevailing interest rates, to provide a transfer value which represented the present day cost of the benefits at retirement. OP was young at the time, so there would have been years for the cash to grow - or, as many found to their cost, not grow once they'd transferred out and interest rates plummeted. 

DaveMcG

PENSION_MUG said:

I thought I had a good case as originally the financial adviser told me the original scheme was being wound up and that's why I transfered, he says he tried to contact me in 1999 with a questionnaire which I did not return because I did not live at that address I examined that I had never been informed by him that he would continue as my advisor and did not update my address with him but I did with the firm I transfered to as I thought they had responsibility for the pension

Your advisor should have reviewed the advice you received to transfer under the SIB review of transfers and optouts between 1988 and 1995. (I imagine that is the reason he sent you a form.)  He should have carried out a loss test under using prescribed regulatory parameters and if this showed a loss (v likely) he should have made arrangements for redress unless (v unlikely) he could show that the advice to transfer didn't lead to the loss.

You should go back to the FOS and state that you do not believe that this review was carried out and as it was a regulatory obligation at the time, no time bars apply.

Thrugelmir

Brynsam said:

Thrugelmir said:

Dox said:

Thrugelmir said:

PENSION_MUG said:

The original pension was guaranteed at 6000 your right my salary at the time was probably about 8-9000 a year, 

If you had worked for the same company until you retired perhaps. The £6,000 would have increased by inflation over the past 30 odd years. That would equivalent to nearer £18,000 now. Without factoring in any payrises. The transfer value appears to bear no correlation to annuity rates back then either. 

It could correlate with a hugely aggressive investment strategy on the part of the trustees, plus high interest rates, which allowing for 30+ years of growth....

Not how DB schemes work. 

These can impact on the amount of any transfer value offered and the high interest rates would have been especially pertinent in the late 1980s/1990s.

Not a guaranteed set in stone deferred pension of £6k at retirement some 30 years ahead though. The transfer value isn't at issue. It is what it was.