Prudential keeping pension pot after death of my father

Marcon

TVAS said:

If you think you have a case complain the the IFA referring it to FOS if you have no joy with him.

You're raising false hopes. No evidence at all that there is any sort of case.

Sandtree

TVAS said:

Having an annuity for a short term i.e. 10 years to me is not appropriate for someone who is deemed not to have a long life span. So the advice seems dodgy in this respect.

The OP said it had a 10 year guarantee not a 10 year duration. 

A guarantee on a life time annuity means if you die within the guarantee period the remainder of the guarantee is paid to your estate. If you live beyond your guarantee period then the annuity just continues to pay as normal until your death.

The OP also said it was an enhanced annuity which means that there were notable health or lifestyle issues that were factored in when considering the benefit payable by the policies in exchange for the monies. Despite paying more for the same pension pot as a non-enhanced ultimately if you live to 110 then the policy continues paying.

GeordieGeorge

TVAS said:

You need a subject access request to get the following:

Factfind
Meeting Notes
Quotes
Recommendation Letter

Are you able to use a SAR to get information about someone else?

I’d thought it could only be about the person making the request.

Thrugelmir

79lulu said:

My poor old dad would be rolling in his grave knowing the insurance company are keeping his hard earned cash!
any advise greatly appreciated. 

I would say that he was reassured to know that he would have a guaranteed income every month for the remainder of his life. That's the key fact. Not leaving money behind. As that would of been of no use to him at all. 

Worth remembering that twelve years the global stock markets had crashed following the GFC. No one foresaw the events that were to follow. Hindsight unfortunately isn't grounds for challenging decisions made in the past. Annuity rates were also far better back then than they are today. 

Notepad_Phil

dunstonh said:

"I have seen so many cases like this where the most important thing is maximising the income. Men have taken single life annuities so when they drop down dead the wife who thought she would continue to receive some or all of the income gets NOTHING. This is my bug bear when female spouse do not get involved in family finances."

That I do agree with.

However, having just done a  case like this in the last few weeks where we recommended 100% spouse as the objective was income for both lives, after supplying the figures, the husband has decided to go single life with a 10 year guarantee because the reduction to include spouse was too great.   So, now we are doing the case on insistent client basis (going against advice).

Does the wife know? It's one thing if she does and understands and is happy, however if she doesn't then it sounds almost criminal to do something like that. Mrs Notepad's mother was put into this situation and has had to live without her husband's pension for getting on for 20 years now. I've not digged into her situation but I know that the extra income would have come in handy.

ratechaser

Notepad_Phil said:

dunstonh said:

"I have seen so many cases like this where the most important thing is maximising the income. Men have taken single life annuities so when they drop down dead the wife who thought she would continue to receive some or all of the income gets NOTHING. This is my bug bear when female spouse do not get involved in family finances."

That I do agree with.

However, having just done a  case like this in the last few weeks where we recommended 100% spouse as the objective was income for both lives, after supplying the figures, the husband has decided to go single life with a 10 year guarantee because the reduction to include spouse was too great.   So, now we are doing the case on insistent client basis (going against advice).

Does the wife know? It's one thing if she does and understands and is happy, however if she doesn't then it sounds almost criminal to do something like that. Mrs Notepad's mother was put into this situation and has had to live without her husband's pension for getting on for 20 years now. I've not digged into her situation but I know that the extra income would have come in handy.

I very much doubt that an IFA in this situation would be allowed to tell the wife directly, although I'm sure there would be strong advice that their direct client needs to do so.

For that matter, can an IFA even act jointly for a husband/wife or does that inherently create a conflict of interest?

Linton

ratechaser said:

Notepad_Phil said:

dunstonh said:

"I have seen so many cases like this where the most important thing is maximising the income. Men have taken single life annuities so when they drop down dead the wife who thought she would continue to receive some or all of the income gets NOTHING. This is my bug bear when female spouse do not get involved in family finances."

That I do agree with.

However, having just done a  case like this in the last few weeks where we recommended 100% spouse as the objective was income for both lives, after supplying the figures, the husband has decided to go single life with a 10 year guarantee because the reduction to include spouse was too great.   So, now we are doing the case on insistent client basis (going against advice).

Does the wife know? It's one thing if she does and understands and is happy, however if she doesn't then it sounds almost criminal to do something like that. Mrs Notepad's mother was put into this situation and has had to live without her husband's pension for getting on for 20 years now. I've not digged into her situation but I know that the extra income would have come in handy.

I very much doubt that an IFA in this situation would be allowed to tell the wife directly, although I'm sure there would be strong advice that their direct client needs to do so.

For that matter, can an IFA even act jointly for a husband/wife or does that inherently create a conflict of interest?

An IFA can act for both partners. I would have thought that in normal circumstances it would be foolish for both not to be seeking advice together as, hopefully, they have the same objectives, have joint assets, and would want to minimise tax and other costs overall rather than each individually.  Presumably the IFA would not want to be in the position of mediator between an arguing couple.

edinburgher

GeordieGeorge said:

TVAS said:

You need a subject access request to get the following:

Factfind
Meeting Notes
Quotes
Recommendation Letter

Are you able to use a SAR to get information about someone else?

I’d thought it could only be about the person making the request.

Most organisations will accept a SAR from a third party qualified to act on behalf of the data subject. This could be as simple as a suitably worded signed mandate, or more formal arrangements such as a POA requesting records on behalf of the data subject.

From the ICO:

Can someone else make a request on my behalf?

Yes, you can authorise someone else to make a subject access request for you. However, you should consider whether you want the other person to have access to some or all of your personal information.

Depending on the nature of your request, the other person could gain access to information that you may not want to share with them, such as your medical history.

Examples of individuals making requests for other people include:

• someone with parental responsibility, or guardianship, asking for information about a child or young person (for further information, please read our guidance for organisations on requests for information about children);
• a person appointed by a court to manage someone else’s affairs;
• a solicitor acting on their client’s instructions; or
• a relative or friend that the individual feels comfortable asking for help.

An organisation receiving the request needs to be satisfied that the other individual is allowed to represent you.

They may ask for formal supporting evidence to show this, such as:

• written authorisation from you; or
• a more general power of attorney.

It is the other person’s responsibility to provide this when asked to do so.

Marcon

edinburgher said:

GeordieGeorge said:

TVAS said:

You need a subject access request to get the following:

Factfind
Meeting Notes
Quotes
Recommendation Letter

Are you able to use a SAR to get information about someone else?

I’d thought it could only be about the person making the request.

Most organisations will accept a SAR from a third party qualified to act on behalf of the data subject. This could be as simple as a suitably worded signed mandate, or more formal arrangements such as a POA requesting records on behalf of the data subject.

From the ICO:

Can someone else make a request on my behalf?

Yes, you can authorise someone else to make a subject access request for you. However, you should consider whether you want the other person to have access to some or all of your personal information.

Depending on the nature of your request, the other person could gain access to information that you may not want to share with them, such as your medical history.

Examples of individuals making requests for other people include:

• someone with parental responsibility, or guardianship, asking for information about a child or young person (for further information, please read our guidance for organisations on requests for information about children);
• a person appointed by a court to manage someone else’s affairs;
• a solicitor acting on their client’s instructions; or
• a relative or friend that the individual feels comfortable asking for help.

An organisation receiving the request needs to be satisfied that the other individual is allowed to represent you.

They may ask for formal supporting evidence to show this, such as:

• written authorisation from you; or
• a more general power of attorney.

It is the other person’s responsibility to provide this when asked to do so.

This is all very interesting (and hopefully of use to other readers) but there is zero evidence that any of this is going to get OP anywhere. Her dad bought an own life policy with a 10 year guarantee and the benefit of an enhanced rate because he was in poor health. Possibly he misunderstood that he'd 'spent' the pot and there would be nothing for anyone to inherit once that 10 year period was up, and that (obviously in tandem with the death of her dad) is what has created the unhappiness for OP. 

However much advisers try to explain things, often with the client nodding vigorously to confirm they have completely understood, things like buying an annuity are often a once in a lifetime event for the client and they just don't follow what's happened, even if they genuinely believe they do.

Sandtree

Notepad_Phil said:

dunstonh said:

"I have seen so many cases like this where the most important thing is maximising the income. Men have taken single life annuities so when they drop down dead the wife who thought she would continue to receive some or all of the income gets NOTHING. This is my bug bear when female spouse do not get involved in family finances."

That I do agree with.

However, having just done a  case like this in the last few weeks where we recommended 100% spouse as the objective was income for both lives, after supplying the figures, the husband has decided to go single life with a 10 year guarantee because the reduction to include spouse was too great.   So, now we are doing the case on insistent client basis (going against advice).

Does the wife know? It's one thing if she does and understands and is happy, however if she doesn't then it sounds almost criminal to do something like that. Mrs Notepad's mother was put into this situation and has had to live without her husband's pension for getting on for 20 years now. I've not digged into her situation but I know that the extra income would have come in handy.

There is no legal requirement for someone to ensure that their spouse is provided for on their death. It is their choice alone.

We're been together 13 years now, when we met I worked 40-50 hours a week mon-fri in financial services and earned very good money. She tended to work 50-65 hours on little more than NMW but Mon-Sun with a slant to weekend working. At that point we decided that for the loss of her income we'd rather have weekends/bank holidays etc together. Were I to fall under a bus tomorrow then she'd equally be left high and dry if I chose not to buy life insurance and again there is no legal requirement for me to do so.

Once of the few areas where Nanny State allows couples to make their own decisions rather than requiring people to buy insurance or take joint life pensions.