Pension has finally landed - As an insistent client acting against advice -*DOORS CLOSED 03/09/2021*

xylophone

If they don’t know, what chance has the average client up against a deadline?

But that is not really the point.

The client has engaged an adviser and paid for the advice.

That is all that he can expect.

It is not the job of the adviser to find a way for the client to go against his advice?

QrizB

Diplodicus said:

As far as I know, nobody on this board knows a viable route to transfer against advice (without setting up a decoy stakeholder account and taking the case to the ombudsman).

Small self-administered schemes (SSAS) have bene mentioned, too. I'm almost entirely in the dark about what one of those is but if I wanted to transfer my DB I'd be willing to learn. (I don't want to transfer.)

Diplodicus

xylophone said:

If they don’t know, what chance has the average client up against a deadline?

But that is not really the point

The point, indeed the principle, of the process is that the final choice rests with the client. If the client in practical terms is unable to make that choice, the pension advice process is broken.

DaveT55

If we have IFA advice (negative) that will satisfy the DB pension scheme to allow the transfer to take place is it an option to transfer the pension to an overseas provider (USA)? My partner has dual citizenship. I have no idea whether this is a viable option or the implications (tax etc) of this, but there are very few routes still open to us now. Our age will immediately mean the advice is negative. 

QrizB

DaveT55 said:

If we have IFA advice (negative) that will satisfy the DB pension scheme to allow the transfer to take place is it an option to transfer the pension to an overseas provider (USA)? My partner has dual citizenship.

A QROPS? Apparently there are some IRS issues with transfers to the US (or at least Wikipedia thinks so).

xylophone

 If the client in practical terms is unable to make that choice, the pension advice process is broken.

That is not the responsibility of the Pension Transfer Specialist.

He has fulfilled the contract with his client to provide advice on the transfer.

If the client wishes to proceed against advice then it is up to him to explore any available pathway.

If the pathway has obstacles, it is the pension providers who have put them there.

Diplodicus

xylophone said:

 If the client in practical terms is unable to make that choice, the pension advice process is broken.

That is not the responsibility of the Pension Transfer Specialist.

He has fulfilled the contract with his client to provide advice on the transfer.

If the client wishes to proceed against advice then it is up to him to explore any available pathway.

If the pathway has obstacles, it is the pension providers who have put them there.

But the client’s contact through this process is not the pension provider but the financial adviser. The client engages the financial adviser from the position of a supplicant. He expects the adviser to know more than him and, since he is paying him handsomely, may reasonably expect the adviser to be on his side. Failing that, should at least expect the adviser to be honest at the outset about how difficult it would be to effect a transfer by himself.

Are you suggesting that it should not concern the PTS whether their client is able to transfer against a recommendation?

xylophone

He expects the adviser to know more than him and, since he is paying him handsomely, may reasonably expect the adviser to be on his side. Failing that, should at least expect the adviser to be honest at the outset about how difficult it would be to effect a transfer by himself.

If  the client thinks that the adviser knows more than he does, why would the client not accept the advice that a transfer out would be against his interests?

And by "on his side", do you mean that the  client thinks that the adviser, seeing that his client is "champing at the bit" to get his hands on all that lovely money, should simply give  a positive recommendation even if he thinks it would be against  his client's best interests?

And how do you know that the adviser does not make it clear at the outset that a transfer against advice is likely to encounter barriers?

Diplodicus

xylophone said:

He expects the adviser to know more than him and, since he is paying him handsomely, may reasonably expect the adviser to be on his side. Failing that, should at least expect the adviser to be honest at the outset about how difficult it would be to effect a transfer by himself.

If  the client thinks that the adviser knows more than he does, why would the client not accept the advice that a transfer out would be against his interests?

Because of the principle at stake: Advisers advise, clients decide.

And by "on his side", do you mean that the  client thinks that the adviser, seeing that his client is "champing at the bit" to get his hands on all that lovely money, should simply give  a positive recommendation even if he thinks it would be against  his client's best interests?

No. I mean tell the insistent client how to reach his goal.

And how do you know that the adviser does not make it clear at the outset that a transfer against advice is likely to encounter barriers?

Mine certainly didnt. But it would depend on whether the adviser cared whether the client could, in fact, transfer against his advice. 

But if, as you say, that is not the adviser’s responsibility; the corollary is that he probably wouldn’t care either. 

Or or do you believe that he should? I do.

jamesd

xylophone said:

 If the client in practical terms is unable to make that choice, the pension advice process is broken.

That is not the responsibility of the Pension Transfer Specialist.

He has fulfilled the contract with his client to provide advice on the transfer.

It is the responsibility of the adviser because they are required to treat their clients fairly. If they advise knowing that a client is to transfer anyway and that there are no ways to do that then they are selling them a service that they can't use as intended. And that's failing to treat their client fairly.

Of course I'm not happy about this situation and it shouldn't be necessary for advisers to even think about this, but in the current circumstances it is and they must provide a service that their clients can really use.