DB Transfer

Linton

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

Thrugelmir

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

The investments held are illiquid. Suggesting that in this particular instance the journalist has omitted material facts in editing the story. 

Thrugelmir

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

Investor complacency abounds following the longest bull market in history fueled by the printing of money and record low interest rates. Retirement is a multi decade event.  

Linton

Thrugelmir said:

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

The investments held are illiquid. Suggesting that in this particular instance the journalist has omitted material facts in editing the story. 

Possibly but it does not change the basic situation.  The client insisted that he wanted a transfer against advice, chose his own investments and was awarded compensation for his losses by the FOS.  If that can happen what would an insurer need to charge to cover an advisor against this happening in the future?  Why would any rational advisor want to put themselves in a position where they could be held responsible for a customer's actions.

You can't have nanny state protection without nanny state controls.

[Deleted User]

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

This case pre-dates pension freedoms (2014).

Linton

ZingPowZing said:

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

This case pre-dates pension freedoms (2014).

ZingPowZing said:

Linton said:

Dale72 said:

You say that complaint stats disagree, but again I think that's a little disingenuous. Show me the stats where someone who has got exactly what they expected or were led to believe, and don't include those that were mis-sold or conned into something. They aren't the same thing.

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

This case pre-dates pension freedoms (2014).

The events leading to the case date from pre 2014.  The decision and attitude of the FOS on the case is post 2014 and I believe ties in with the FCAs current approach.  The implications of the case have much more significance now following the 2014 reforms than previously.

xylophone

That is what they told James as well. 

Not quite.

James said

Standard Life told me on the phone today that they would accept a transfer into their Stakeholder product by an IFA when that IFA had advised not transferring.

That is to say, if the IFA was prepared to organise the transfer to SL (even though he  had advised against a transfer out), SL would accept it.

In other words, SL doesn't object to taking a transfer against advice  - they just want the paperwork done by an IFA.

Whereas RTR says  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78408649/#Comment_78408649

They told me they would not accept insistent clients acting against IFA advice and the IFA would need sign off the transfer for them to accept it.

That is to say, SL would not accept a transfer without a positive recommendation.

There's a subtle difference.... 

Dale72

Linton said:

The following case may be of interest.
https://www.ftadviser.com/sipp/2018/09/14/ombudsman-finds-in-favour-of-insistent-client/

No wonder IFAs, or perhaps more significantly their insurers, are keeping well clear of insistent clients.

Yes it is, and highlights what I've been saying. In this case the ombudsman found the client had received poor advice. When a client is seeking advice, and paying a large fee for it, then he clearly expects to receive good advice to help him reach his decision. If he doesn't receive this, which was found to be the case here, then I don't see how his complaint can be viewed as anything other than fair.

Malthusian

Unless I'm missing something, RoadToRiches was talking about their Standard Life workplace pension, so probably not a stakeholder pension.

dunstonh

That is to say, if the IFA was prepared to organise the transfer to SL (even though he  had advised against a transfer out), SL would accept it.
In other words, SL doesn't object to taking a transfer against advice  - they just want the paperwork done by an IFA.

That is the same position with virtually every provider out there that takes business via an IFA.  

There's a subtle difference....

It is.  However, I wonder how much of the difference is down to communication and interpretation.  For example, the applications for the product do not ask if the advice recommended the transfer.   It just asks if advice was given.  And it would have to be placed through the IFA agency.    So, where would SL get this information from if they are not asking for it.