Transferring old workplace pension into a SIPP

Dale72

dunstonh, that would only be a correct analogy if a motor dealer gave me a recommendation based on a brief chat and then refused to change it based on an indepth conversation.

Dale72

As for my "claims" of understanding, that's kind of my point, I only have past results to go on, and those claims hold up well. I wasn't invested with Woodford by the way, that was a little sarcasm, sorry.

Linton

Croeso69 said:

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

My situation is that I will be transferring irrespective of the advice given, but obviously if I can do it for £800 rather than £3000 then I'm going to try. Whether abridged advice was made for someone in my position or not, the fact is my IFA has told me that one of the possible outcomes is definitive advice against transferring, that won't change if I take full advice. So how can it be anything other than suspect, for me to HAVE TO take full advice to satisfy the law?

The advice that is required must come under the regulations - it obviously would defeat the whole object of the legal requirement to have received advice if "advice" could consist of a quick chat  in the pub.  

When an IFA gives you formal advice he is legally liable for that advice.  If it turns out to be inappropriate you can sue the IFA for your resultant losses which could be very high.

You may think that if you go for a transfer against advice then the IFA is safe.   Not so, there was a case a while ago whereby someone did transfer a DB pension against advice and not too surprisingly the results were disastrous.  They sued the IFA and won on the grounds that the IFA's advice not to transfer was not considered to be strong enough.   

Under those circumstances most IFAs dont handle DB transfers and those that do have to pay very large liability insurance charges.  That is why no IFA can give you formal advice on DB transfers for a few £100.

Do you have the Ombudsman case number for this @Linton as it would be interesting.

Thanks

I dont know the specific case, the matter was discussed on this forum a few years ago.  With a quick bit of research  (thanks Google) I have found this: https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/?page=1 which may be it.  

Croeso69

Linton said:

Croeso69 said:

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

My situation is that I will be transferring irrespective of the advice given, but obviously if I can do it for £800 rather than £3000 then I'm going to try. Whether abridged advice was made for someone in my position or not, the fact is my IFA has told me that one of the possible outcomes is definitive advice against transferring, that won't change if I take full advice. So how can it be anything other than suspect, for me to HAVE TO take full advice to satisfy the law?

The advice that is required must come under the regulations - it obviously would defeat the whole object of the legal requirement to have received advice if "advice" could consist of a quick chat  in the pub.  

When an IFA gives you formal advice he is legally liable for that advice.  If it turns out to be inappropriate you can sue the IFA for your resultant losses which could be very high.

You may think that if you go for a transfer against advice then the IFA is safe.   Not so, there was a case a while ago whereby someone did transfer a DB pension against advice and not too surprisingly the results were disastrous.  They sued the IFA and won on the grounds that the IFA's advice not to transfer was not considered to be strong enough.   

Under those circumstances most IFAs dont handle DB transfers and those that do have to pay very large liability insurance charges.  That is why no IFA can give you formal advice on DB transfers for a few £100.

Do you have the Ombudsman case number for this @Linton as it would be interesting.

Thanks

I dont know the specific case, the matter was discussed on this forum a few years ago.  With a quick bit of research  (thanks Google) I have found this: https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/?page=1 which may be it.  

Found it I think, searching for "Portafina" and "insistent"...

"After obtaining information from M C’s former OPS Portafina sent him a letter dated 16 November 2011 setting out the benefits that would be payable from the scheme. It said as the critical yield was 10.1% it would be against its recommendation to transfer. Portafina said if he still wanted to transfer it could help but it would have to treat Mr C as an insistent customer. And that Mr C would need to complete an insistent customer form which it included with its letter. And then it would send him a copy of its reason why report detailing its advice."

Decision Reference DRN9316495 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Seems a bit harsh to me. I can see why IFA's run a mile from this sort of stuff.

dunstonh

Dale72 said:

dunstonh, that would only be a correct analogy if a motor dealer gave me a recommendation based on a brief chat and then refused to change it based on an indepth conversation.

The analogy works as two wheels would never be suitable for motoring a family of four.     Otherwise, it would be "unclear".      If there is any hint that it could be suitable then it gets "unclear".    

Dale72

Ok, so if I was told a bike was unsuitable as I had a wife and kids, but I said I'm going to buy one anyway, and he says well legally you can't unless we give you detailed advice, which will also say its unsuitable, and then you can go ahead and get one. perverse, illogical and wrong.

AlanP_2

Dale72 said:

Ok, so if I was told a bike was unsuitable as I had a wife and kids, but I said I'm going to buy one anyway, and he says well legally you can't unless we give you detailed advice, which will also say its unsuitable, and then you can go ahead and get one. perverse, illogical and wrong.

Surely whether it is perverse , illogical and wrong is irrelevant as it is the rules.

If you think they need changing contact your MP or the FCA as we, on this forum, cannot change the law that drives those regulations.

We get lots of "transfer DB" posts and nobody likes paying the fee but we all have to live with it as we can't avoid it. Focus on what you can control and shrug off all the other stuff.

Dale72

Thanks Alan, I was going to write to the FCA, not sure about my MP, maybe. I appreciate that a forum is just essentially a 'talking shop', and any changes in law that gave us the rights and freedoms we enjoy now were achieved by people taking action. You can all thank me later.