Gaining control over my pension

Diplodicus

AJ Bell do. 

DeadlyD

xylophone 

Once you've kicked off your shoes at the end of a hectic day and collapsed on the hotel divan, you could enliven your leisure hours with this.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg21-3.pdf

Do  keep us up to date on your progress.

it’s like a part time job learning this new Fincisl lingo.. I have skim read this and some really good advice and points that should protect the consumer. But open to interpretation I would surmise. The IFA and client are stuck as there is no fund to transfer as an insistent client once all the good practice has been followed. 

Marcon

Diplodicus said:

AJ Bell do. 

AJ Bell do what?

xylophone

The IFA and client are stuck as there is no fund to transfer as an insistent client once all the good practice has been followed. 

I  thought I'd have a trawl around the net to see what comments were available on the topic of insistent clients.  I caught sight of this article produced only a few months ago.

https://www.ft.com/content/3adc969b-212f-40d2-a1b7-d0126428fa58

I was somewhat taken aback to read  the paragraph concerning an insistent client's possibly being able "to demand that his adviser press ahead......."

How could an adviser be required to act against the advice given in the best interests of the client?

The next paragraph does cover the possibility that another adviser might be prepared to complete the transfer  (satisfied he was covered by his PI?) - is this what what was envisaged by the firm you mentioned having consulted? This was also mentioned in the FCA guidance you have been skimming.

I was also looking at this

https://adviser.royallondon.com/pensions/personal-pensions/pension-portfolio/defined-benefit-db-transfers/

which is aimed at advisers  and not at the general public - it does say that RL

 may also accept a transfer where the client has received a personal recommendation, yet they’ve decided to go against this advice and continue with the transfer, also known as an ‘insistent client’.

However, this is hedged about with various caveats and it is made clear that RL will

review all defined benefits business.

so far from a "done deal". 

DeadlyD

Good work @xylophone ! I wonder if Royal London are still taking on insistent clients?? Just read this on the link you posted 

“We’re defining an ‘insistent client’ as someone who you’re providing a personal recommendation to as part of an advised sale but they’re choosing to go against this advice.  In this instance, you’ll only be facilitating the transfer, so you can advise a suitable product and investment choice.” DD 

xylophone

I wonder if Royal London are still taking on insistent clients?? Just read this on the link you posted 

I have absolutely no idea at all - as I said, I was just surfing the net and came upon the RL site - and  you will have noted that there is many an "if," "and" "but" - and positions seem to change very quickly in the pensions industry.

DeadlyD

I’ll see what both IFAs say about how they transfer an insistent client ridiculous as it seems and advise back on this post thanks! 

Malthusian

xylophone said:

I was somewhat taken aback to read  the paragraph concerning an insistent client's possibly being able "to demand that his adviser press ahead......."

How could an adviser be required to act against the advice given in the best interests of the client?

By "demand his adviser press ahead" the FT means that the client would have to write a letter in his own handwriting to the adviser explaining why he wanted to go ahead with the transfer anyway. The adviser would then write him a recommendation along the lines of "I have advised you not to cash in your DB scheme but since you have decided to anyway, I recommend you put the cash here".

The adviser would still be entirely free not to offer any more advice. "Demand" is a slightly strange verb to use but I can see why the FT used it. The point of the letter in the punter's own handwriting is that in theory (a theory that was popular in 2015 and is now discredited) it proved that the impetus to transfer came entirely from the client. Not the adviser persuading him it was a good idea while giving him a letter saying it was a bad idea to avoid liability. So the FT has used the word "demand" in the sense of "request forcefully". It is still a request rather than an order that must be obeyed.

This was the procedure universally agreed to be good practice for acting on an "insistent client" basis before the consensus changed and it was universally agreed that good practice to act on an "insistent client" basis was not to act at all.

The same thing happened with "execution only" business at the beginning of the last decade. (Execution only = You have not asked me whether you should do this and I'm just taking money off you for doing the paperwork; Insistent client = I have told you not to do this and I'm just taking money off you to advise you how to do it anyway.) It went virtually extinct because the regulators took the view that it was a way for dodgy advisers to try to handwave away liability by persuading the client to do something while getting the client to sign a piece of paper saying it was their idea.

dunstonh

Good work @xylophone ! I wonder if Royal London are still taking on insistent clients?? Just read this on the link you posted

Royal London, like most intermediary providers, has no problem accepting insistent clients. 

Terron

michael1234 said:

I was trying to discover how a few hundred quid's worth of contributions could be worth £30,000 and unfortunately despite the best efforts of some on this thread I still don't get it !

If your under pin was like mine it was a promised to pay 1/80th of your final salary for each year of service, increased by inflation.
Since your salary increased 600% the value of that promise would also have increased 600%.