Prudential keeping pension pot after death of my father

TVAS

You guys know what I mean about getting the paperwork the important thing is that needs to be done to see what was said in writing.

Commission/Fee same thing it is all money and he needs to paperwork and a copy of the annuity application to see the commission/fee paid however the provider can provide this info.

The single life basis happens so many times when figures are revealed. Out of interest was the wife present? 

jamesd

While single life is ripe for criticism, it can be right for a couple. Say if the extra money is used to fund state pension deferral for the other partner.

Thrugelmir

jamesd said:

While single life is ripe for criticism, it can be right for a couple. Say if the extra money is used to fund state pension deferral for the other partner.

Many people don't have the luxury of deferral. 

Notepad_Phil

Sandtree 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.

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. 

Not sure what your point is. If your point is that the 'Nanny State' allows people to do that to their partner/spouse, then yes there is nothing to stop them from doing that. However I know that I would never knowingly take a unilateral decision that left my partner 'high and dry' and would hope that neither would most of the people on this forum.

Silvertabby

Notepad_Phil said:

Sandtree 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.

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. 

Not sure what your point is. If your point is that the 'Nanny State' allows people to do that to their partner/spouse, then yes there is nothing to stop them from doing that. However I know that I would never knowingly take a unilateral decision that left my partner 'high and dry' and would hope that neither would most of the people on this forum.

Perhaps not intentionally, but through making the wrong assumptions?

A chap transferred his deferred benefits to a private pension so he could start to draw his benefits from 50 (as it was then) at a time when the earliest he could access his LGPS pension was 60.  Then he fell ill, and asked his annuity provider how much his wife would get after his death.  He was told nothing, as he had opted for a single life annuity.

This was clearly at odds with his understanding of pensions, as the LGPS had always widely advertised the 50% (ish) widow's pension benefit.

So, in his mind, the only answer was that he had only been able to transfer his own pension, and that his wife's was still with the LGPS.  And he told her to be sure to claim it after his death.... 

Notepad_Phil

Silvertabby said:

Notepad_Phil said:

Sandtree 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.

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. 

Not sure what your point is. If your point is that the 'Nanny State' allows people to do that to their partner/spouse, then yes there is nothing to stop them from doing that. However I know that I would never knowingly take a unilateral decision that left my partner 'high and dry' and would hope that neither would most of the people on this forum.

Perhaps not intentionally, but through making the wrong assumptions?

A chap transferred his deferred benefits to a private pension so he could start to draw his benefits from 50 (as it was then) at a time when the earliest he could access his LGPS pension was 60.  Then he fell ill, and asked his annuity provider how much his wife would get after his death.  He was told nothing, as he had opted for a single life annuity.

This was clearly at odds with his understanding of pensions, as the LGPS had always widely advertised the 50% (ish) widow's pension benefit.

So, in his mind, the only answer was that he had only been able to transfer his own pension, and that his wife's was still with the LGPS.  And he told her to be sure to claim it after his death.... 

Yes that is definitely not a case of knowingly going out to leave your partner 'high and dry'.

I assume this was in the day when you didn't need to take advice (or as much advice) when transferring out - hopefully nowadays an advisor would catch this type of thing.

Silvertabby

Notepad_Phil said:

Silvertabby said:

Notepad_Phil said:

Sandtree 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.

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. 

Not sure what your point is. If your point is that the 'Nanny State' allows people to do that to their partner/spouse, then yes there is nothing to stop them from doing that. However I know that I would never knowingly take a unilateral decision that left my partner 'high and dry' and would hope that neither would most of the people on this forum.

Perhaps not intentionally, but through making the wrong assumptions?

A chap transferred his deferred benefits to a private pension so he could start to draw his benefits from 50 (as it was then) at a time when the earliest he could access his LGPS pension was 60.  Then he fell ill, and asked his annuity provider how much his wife would get after his death.  He was told nothing, as he had opted for a single life annuity.

This was clearly at odds with his understanding of pensions, as the LGPS had always widely advertised the 50% (ish) widow's pension benefit.

So, in his mind, the only answer was that he had only been able to transfer his own pension, and that his wife's was still with the LGPS.  And he told her to be sure to claim it after his death.... 

Yes that is definitely not a case of knowingly going out to leave your partner 'high and dry'.

I assume this was in the day when you didn't need to take advice (or as much advice) when transferring out - hopefully nowadays an advisor would catch this type of thing.

Before the 'pension freedoms' but after the 1980s fiasco.  The transfer would have been subject to some form of advice, but I guess the requirement to access it from 50 instead of having to wait until 60 was a major part of the play.

fred246

I know a man who is a very poor pensioner. Scraping by on state pension alone. His wife was an IFA. On retirement she took out a single life annuity and died a few months later. Apparently he was supposed to die first as he was a few months older than her.

Marcon

TVAS said:

You guys know what I mean about getting the paperwork the important thing is that needs to be done to see what was said in writing.

Commission/Fee same thing it is all money and he needs to paperwork and a copy of the annuity application to see the commission/fee paid however the provider can provide this info.

The single life basis happens so many times when figures are revealed. Out of interest was the wife present? 

No indication OP's dad had a wife at the time he bought the annuity. The constant references to 'beneficiaries' suggests he may well not have done.

OP hasn't come back to answer any of the questions about why they think some sort of ongoing commission has been paid to the IFA, so possibly they have now spotted that perhaps it hasn't been. Ditto 3-yearly reviews which would not be needed if an annuity was the only product in question.

SomeMadeUpName

Notepad_Phil said:

Sandtree 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.

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. 

Not sure what your point is. If your point is that the 'Nanny State' allows people to do that to their partner/spouse, then yes there is nothing to stop them from doing that. However I know that I would never knowingly take a unilateral decision that left my partner 'high and dry' and would hope that neither would most of the people on this forum.

Agreed, but the point being made I imagine is that there shouldn't be an obligation to provide for a spouse.

It isn't the state's job to look into peoples relationships and the finances therein.

Surely there are any number of circumstances where the choice of no spousal pension is best?

For example take a couple who both have worked, both have full SP coming and both have a half decent DC pot.  It could well be the judgement of both partners that they max an annuity income now and sacrifice spousal entitlement.  That way they get the max income to enjoy whilst together and whilst younger, safe in the knowledge that after first death the longer lived partner is still adequately provided for by there own provision.