Help - IFA appears to have transferred pension pots without written consent

dunstonh

From my view, regardless of which those is, the IFA is the one responsible.   Yes, you can claim OMW or some admin paraplanner could have done this by mistake, but the IFA was the only person you spoke with and will have passed them some instructions.

If its an IFA, then the IFA is responsible.  If it's an FA of OMW (Quilter) then Quilter is responsible.

Curious to hear if Dunstonh knows what any claims process is for this scenario: it sounds close to unforgivable.

I have heard about applications getting submitted electronically accidentally but have never heard of a case being transferred like that and can only guess of what redress would be payable.   I suspect, there would need to be a loss calculation carried out.   It is possible the OP is benefitted financially from this mistake.  In which case, no redress would be payable.    If there is a loss position, the redress should be for the difference.   If the pension can be transferred back to the same version of the plan then that should negate any inconvenience payout.  If it requires a new version and the new version is not as good then further redress would be expected.      RL do operate versions of their pension.   Their current product, which started out under the Scottish Life brand around 2003ish has had multiple versions but each one just changed functionality rather than the terms.   e..g early versions couldn't do drawdown but a later one could but had the same fund range and charges.   
Talisman pensions under RL have high GARs and that could be very costly if lost.  ex CIS pensions under RL are pretty naff and in most cases, being out of those is better (there are exceptions though).

If RL won't take it back into a plan that is equal or better then you would expect a further payment and a goodwill gesture.  If they take it back into a plan that is equal or better, then no further payment and perhaps a minimal goodwill gesture.

At this stage though, I would be looking for an explanation from the adviser as to what happened as it is a rare occurrence and with a provider that needs signatures, in the case of IFAs (possibly not with FAs).   Just saying whoops, it's ok though is not good enough.    Clarification should be sought to whether RL are accepting it back into the old plan.

scdandem

If its an IFA, then the IFA is responsible.  If it's an FA of OMW (Quilter) then Quilter is responsible.
Definitely an IFA, not FA, checked and double-checked.
Curious to hear if Dunstonh knows what any claims process is for this scenario: it sounds close to unforgivable.
The IFA rang me first thing to explain what had happened. He had started the ball rolling with OMW, thinking it was a done deal, OMW had used Orega(?) and they had requested the money. Normally the releasing pension company would request signatures but out of 19 such companies, Royal London is the only one that DOESN'T ask for signatures. 
The IFA has instigated a reversal with OMW (I've seen the emails with OMW) and assures me he will make sure exactly the same amount is paid back to RL and we won't be disadvantaged. He's fully aware that we won't be going with OMW now, or possibly him. He's very embarrassed as he came recommended from a good friend and is keen to protect his reputation.
I've also spoken to RL and raised an official complaint. Even if this is their standard practice, it is NOT acceptable and they have, IMO, failed in their duty of care toward me and my husband. The lady I spoke to was clearly surprised with what had happened and a little embarrassed on behalf of RL. I'll wait to see what happens on that front.

cfw1994

This was Origo Options - designed to speed up transfers, but somewhat quicker than you were expecting, given the lack of firm agreement     
I've moved 3 smaller pensions into my main Aviva pot (several years back), & Origo Options made it easy, but it certainly still took a few days!
RL really should ensure somewhere along the line is a real signed request, even if digitally.
Thx for the update, good luck & keep us informed!

dunstonh

The IFA rang me first thing to explain what had happened. He had started the ball rolling with OMW, thinking it was a done deal, OMW had used Orega(?) and they had requested the money.

It is Origo. Most transfers are done that way now. It's a paperless system.

Normally the releasing pension company would request signatures but out of 19 such companies, Royal London is the only one that DOESN'T ask for signatures. 

That is completely wrong.  I had done thousands of pension transfers and you rarely see any discharge forms nowadays.  Standard Life was the first to do away with them about 15 years ago and soon after, virtually all providers stopped after that.    The only times you see discharge forms nowadays is where there is a professional administrator on the pension (occupational pensions).  They are behind the times.   
Anything done via Origo does not require a discharge form.   

I've also spoken to RL and raised an official complaint. Even if this is their standard practice, it is NOT acceptable and they have, IMO, failed in their duty of care toward me and my husband. 

RL have done nothing wrong.  It is not "their" standard practice.  It is the industry standard practice.
You are blaming the wrong company.

The lady I spoke to was clearly surprised with what had happened and a little embarrassed on behalf of RL.

I expect she was surprised its not a common scenario but she wouldn't have been the slightest bit embarrassed as they have done no wrong and acting correctly.

I fear the adviser is feeding you a line and deflecting from their own mistake.  This is leading you to blame RL when you should be blaming the adviser.     
Who submitted the application:  The adviser
Who declared that they had the client authority to proceed:  The adviser
Who instructed OMW to start the transfer process:  The adviser
Who told RL that they had the policyholders permission to proceed with the transfer?: OMW
Who told OMW to do that?  The adviser

I don't like complaints where a conversation can resolve things.  You had that conversation with the adviser.  However, in this case, the adviser has given you misinformation and that has led to you putting a complaint into a party that is innocent in this.  So, maybe its time to complain to the one that is really at fault.

scdandem

I see your point but I have to disagree. The only person/company I have any contract with is Royal London. To be clear, the IFA is not 'my' IFA. My pp with RL isn't connected to an advisor (the one who set it up for me has retired and RL cancelled his fees). Every time I pay 'IN' I have to sign (yes, sign!) to say I have not had advice, and I actually pay 0.05% more on those lump sum investments. They simply can't have it both ways. 

I agree the IFA is definitely at fault (which he accepts) and not OMW, but I am a customer of RL and therefore they owe me a duty of care. It may be their standard practice to release a customer's £200k on the say so of an FCA member organisation and a standard financial software package, but that doesn't make it right! There MUST be some due diligence involved and it's only by highlighting such, IMO, shockingly poor practice that things can improve. 

Over the years we seem to have fallen prey to bad financial practice time and again, from being convinced to come out of the Miners pension, losing a full years pension due to wrong information from a Kelda pension administrator and being advised to transfer a pension from Scottish Widows with a 9% GAR. I've personally taken every one of them on and we've been fully recompensed/reinstated. 

I'm not a complainer, and we've clearly been unlucky and hoodwinked by the industry in our naivety, (as I'm learning so many others also are) but I'm definitely no pushover.  

Standard practice or not, RL releasing £200k of our money with no absolutely due diligence is simply not excusable. 

I'm still rather angry, can you tell? ☺️

dunstonh

 To be clear, the IFA is not 'my' IFA.

But he stated on a regulated declaration that he was.   IFAs have the ability to transact on your behalf.

My pp with RL isn't connected to an advisor (the one who set it up for me has retired and RL cancelled his fees).

So, how did the new adviser get information on the plan sufficient to give advice that it should be transferred?

The normal process is to get a letter of authority that puts the policy on the adviser's agency.

but I am a customer of RL and therefore they owe me a duty of care. 

Yes, they do. However, they have an instruction from a regulated entity stating they had your permission.  That system is paperless because it only involves regulated entities.

It may be their standard practice to release a customer's £200k on the say so of an FCA member organisation and a standard financial software package, but that doesn't make it right!

As I said it is not "their" standard practice.  it is a regulated process across the industry.    If you do not like it then complain to your MP.

There MUST be some due diligence involved and it's only by highlighting such, IMO, shockingly poor practice that things can improve. 

There is but you are complaining to the wrong entity.    

Standard practice or not, RL releasing £200k of our money with no absolutely due diligence is simply not excusable. 

And your complaint will not achieve or change anything as RL do not control the Origo transfer system.

I'm still rather angry, can you tell? ☺️

Yes.  But it is misdirected.

scdandem

My pp with RL isn't connected to an advisor (the one who set it up for me has retired and RL cancelled his fees).

So, how did the new adviser get information on the plan sufficient to give advice that it should be transferred?

The normal process is to get a letter of authority that puts the policy on the adviser's agency

Yes, I've been through that process before. But that hasn't happened in this case. It's simply been a conversation between me and the IFA. RL have no record of or knowledge of him, yet they released money on his say so, twice removed.

My questions re what the IFA was advising are how I came to MSE. I've learned a great deal in a short space of time, including from yourself, and I now see his advice has been 'less than independent' and pretty poor. But it's still RL that I feel most let down by. 

BTW, how do you quote just one part of someone's comment? I can't figure it out!

dunstonh

Yes, I've been through that process before. But that hasn't happened in this case. It's simply been a conversation between me and the IFA. RL have no record of or knowledge of him, yet they released money on his say so, twice removed.

A conversation is not good enough.   A pension transfer requires a range of information to be obtained from the provider, held on the files as evidence and a comparison carried out.     The more you tell us about this adviser, the more breaches seem to be taking place.  There is a regulatory process in place which is why the transfer system doesn't need signatures (nor do ISAs or unwrapped investments either)  It works on the basis that everyone in the chain is fulfilling their regulatory duties.  Declaring you have done something and not doing it is a regulatory breach.   

I have just checked but the latest OMW software doesn't need signatures to start the process.  The old software does.  We are in the tranche that is moving to the new software later this month.  I suspect the adviser you have is already on their new software.  He may well have been caught out by that.

But it's still RL that I feel most let down by. 

When you move it next time or the time after that, you will be let down again with each provider because the same thing will happen again (in respect of the no signature bit).    Direct debits are no longer signed.  A lot of insurance no longer has signatures on it.   The systems are based on trust to improve convenience and putting it right in rare failures.

Here is a list of the providers that do the same way as RL (not including sub-brands which brings it to over 120): Origo | All Origo Transfer Service customers

781,782 pension transfers using origo were done in 2019/20.

I just feel it is an injustice blaming RL for what is the norm and it not being them that broke the chain by acting incorrectly.  If the adviser had been honest, you could accept it was a genuine error as long as it was corrected.  End of the story if that had been the case.  However, being dishonest about RL being the only one to do it without a discharge form out of 19 (where did he get 19 from considering there are is over 100 in the list) leading to you making a complaint to them despite him being the cause of the process breach just feels wrong.

BTW, how do you quote just one part of someone's comment? I can't figure it out!

It's a bit manual but you select the text from the post you want to quote on. copy it and then Paste it into the reply box. Press enter to add an extra line.  Then highlight the text you have pasted and then select the quote button and select quote and it will appear in the grey box.  

[Deleted User]

scdandem said:

Yes, I've been through that process before. But that hasn't happened in this case. It's simply been a conversation between me and the IFA. RL have no record of or knowledge of him, yet they released money on his say so, twice removed.

My questions re what the IFA was advising are how I came to MSE. I've learned a great deal in a short space of time, including from yourself, and I now see his advice has been 'less than independent' and pretty poor. But it's still RL that I feel most let down by. 

This is a simple black and white issue. Not really an opinion thing. Someone who knows the process explained that RL did exactly what they were expected to do.  Assuming your story is accurate and there was no signature at the other end, I am not sure why you persist in blaming RL. 

scdandem

It's a bit manual but you select the text from the post you want to quote on. copy it and then Paste it into the reply box. Press enter to add an extra line.  Then highlight the text you have pasted and then select the quote button and select quote and it will appear in the grey box

Thank you 🙏🏻 And thank you also for taking the time to help me understand all this  The IFA said OMW had told him that out of 19 companies they had done a transfer for (that day?) only RL didn't need a signature. Him getting caught out with the new software process makes sense, from our conversation. 

Assuming your story is accurate and there was no signature at the other end, I am not sure why you persist in blaming RL. 

I'm not in the habit of making things up. Are you? I persist in blaming 'the process' that RL employ, which has allowed me, their customer, for whom they have a duty of care, in this unprotected situation, after, as you can see, only an exploratory conversation with an IFA. 

Whether it is standard practice, legally sound, agreed within the industry or not, the fact is that I had a chat with an IFA, was considering whether to go ahead, and in the meantime all the financial parties felt it acceptable to instigate, request and release my £200k without my express consent. At the end of the day I am interested in the service from the company of whom I am a paying customer. Whoever is at fault (and I fully understand the IFA made the first error) there should be security checks that avoid this from happening. FGS, I have to sign into a portal, receive a code to my mobile and enter that into my pc before I can even read an email to tell me they've rebranded!! That's how security conscious they are to protect your information. Yet a software request with no proof, or even check, of customer signature is taken as security stringent enough to release my funds?!!

 I've spoken to several non-financial but well-educated people, and every one of them is astounded by this.  And every one of them has said they would be wary of using the IFA going forward, but in their eyes that ultimately RL are the custodians of the funds and have a duty to make sure practices are in place to protect their customers, and in this case haven't. I'll say it again, it may be "how it is" it may not be unlawful, but that does not mean that it's actually 'right'. 

As a customer it is "simple black and white". RL have been trusted to hold and invest my money and have released it to another company without requesting, or checking in any way for, my consent. I'll wait to see what they have to say.