Hoops to jump through for transfer to SIPP

handful

You have my sympathy - I can completely understand why you feel this is OTT and it sounds as if this is a perfectly respectable deal which is just taking ages, rather than a scam attempt. The problem is that that consumer protection means (as in your case) what seems to be heavy-handed over protection, since filtering out scammers is far from easy. Looking at the vast numbers of people being conned, and the amounts of money they lose/the impact on their lives, please grit your teeth and press on without feeling too hard done by. At least you'll still have your savings once the deal is done.

Thank you Marcon, I will just plod on for now!

k_man

I went through a similar process with PL.
I think the red flag was similar to the OP, in stating I did not yet know what I was specifically going to invest in, once it was in the SIPP (hadn't completely decided at the time).

Similar questionairres, and a due diligence call with PL.
Finally they asked me to have a Pension Safeguarding call with Moneyhelper (to ensure I understood the risks, and was aware of scams etc).
Once I had that call, the transfer eventually progressed.

This was for a cash/Origo transfer.
Process took about 3 months.

Their due diligence processes seemed quite keen, and a stark contrast all my other transfers, all via Origo, all of which completed without question within 2 weeks.

All of these were this year.

The PL one just seemed like hard work!

handful

k_man said:

I went through a similar process with PL.
I think the red flag was similar to the OP, in stating I did not yet know what I was specifically going to invest in, once it was in the SIPP (hadn't completely decided at the time).

Similar questionairres, and a due diligence call with PL.
Finally they asked me to have a Pension Safeguarding call with Moneyhelper (to ensure I understood the risks, and was aware of scams etc).
Once I had that call, the transfer eventually progressed.

This was for a cash/Origo transfer.
Process took about 3 months.

Their due diligence processes seemed quite keen, and a stark contrast all my other transfers, all via Origo, all of which completed without question within 2 weeks.

All of these were this year.

The PL one just seemed like hard work!

It genuinely feels like they are trying to block me regardless of whether I am making the right decision or not! I understand the scam prevention aspect but when they have satisfied themselves that I'm not being scammed then my choice of investments is none of their business!

k_man

handful said:

k_man said:

I went through a similar process with PL.
I think the red flag was similar to the OP, in stating I did not yet know what I was specifically going to invest in, once it was in the SIPP (hadn't completely decided at the time).

Similar questionairres, and a due diligence call with PL.
Finally they asked me to have a Pension Safeguarding call with Moneyhelper (to ensure I understood the risks, and was aware of scams etc).
Once I had that call, the transfer eventually progressed.

This was for a cash/Origo transfer.
Process took about 3 months.

Their due diligence processes seemed quite keen, and a stark contrast all my other transfers, all via Origo, all of which completed without question within 2 weeks.

All of these were this year.

The PL one just seemed like hard work!

It genuinely feels like they are trying to block me regardless of whether I am making the right decision or not! I understand the scam prevention aspect but when they have satisfied themselves that I'm not being scammed then my choice of investments is none of their business!

I felt the same way, and it was very frustrating, especially compared to the ease of other transfers.

Now the transfer has completed I am more philosophical.

Keep going with the process, and try and remember it's a pension, so a long term investment, and so a few extra weeks to transfer isn't really significant.
(See, I can say that now 😉).

Malthusian

handful said:

It genuinely feels like they are trying to block me regardless of whether I am making the right decision or not! I understand the scam prevention aspect but when they have satisfied themselves that I'm not being scammed then my choice of investments is none of their business!

Without knowing what you will be investing in they can't know whether you are being scammed or not. 
Bear in mind that they are not just administrators but trustees of your pension fund, responsible for ensuring it is there to fund your retirement. The responsibilities of pension trustees are in some cases reduced compared to, say, the trustees of a discretionary or bereaved minor's trust, but are not abrogated entirely. As SIPP providers who profited from facilitating obvious scams found out (Berkeley Burke, Carey Pensions et al).
As with bank transfers, if society wants the general public to bail out those who lose their money to scams, the quid pro quo is that the general public have to jump through more hoops to reduce the number of people who have to be bailed out.

Albermarle

then my choice of investments is none of their business!

Just tell them something well known and middle of the road, Like Vanguard Life strategy 60.

Once the money is transferred you can invest it where you like.

dunstonh

handful said:

k_man said:

I went through a similar process with PL.
I think the red flag was similar to the OP, in stating I did not yet know what I was specifically going to invest in, once it was in the SIPP (hadn't completely decided at the time).

Similar questionairres, and a due diligence call with PL.
Finally they asked me to have a Pension Safeguarding call with Moneyhelper (to ensure I understood the risks, and was aware of scams etc).
Once I had that call, the transfer eventually progressed.

This was for a cash/Origo transfer.
Process took about 3 months.

Their due diligence processes seemed quite keen, and a stark contrast all my other transfers, all via Origo, all of which completed without question within 2 weeks.

All of these were this year.

The PL one just seemed like hard work!

It genuinely feels like they are trying to block me regardless of whether I am making the right decision or not! I understand the scam prevention aspect but when they have satisfied themselves that I'm not being scammed then my choice of investments is none of their business!

I would just tell you to read what Malthusian has said and take it in.   As usual, he has a good way of getting to the point.

ie.:
As with bank transfers, if society wants the general public to bail out those who lose their money to scams, the quid pro quo is that the general public have to jump through more hoops to reduce the number of people who have to be bailed out.

Just tell them something well known and middle of the road, Like Vanguard Life strategy 60.

That would work.   It covers their backsides as you told a lie.  So, you cannot blame the ceding scheme for letting you get scammed as you lied to them.       Again, following on from above, there are people who blame the ceding scheme for them being scammed.   So, whilst this is additional consumer protection, it also helps reduce the chances of trustees and administrators facing claims and legal cases.

gm0

As simple as it gets.  You are not in fact the customer. 
The FCA is via the conduct of business regs.

Admin for trustees are doing it to meet their commitments to them.  Albeit as they have chosen to implement them process swimlanes by destination/forms/audit trail etc.  

If you don't like the "none of your business" aspect of this process - just try the full "fact find" for (insured) financial advice - you'll love that.

(Some) Pension platforms ask you for proposed investments when you crystallise also even if you are not asking them to make the trades i.e. even if you want the money left as cash for you to feed into the market as and when with limit orders.
They will still likely ask.  COB driven processes again

This time I think they are about the FCA being somewhat concerned about excess cash holdings for the very long term which they view as naive vs inflation and thus increasing the risk and spread of failure. But I could be wrong about why that particular one happens.

Qyburn

gm0 said:

As simple as it gets.  You are not in fact the customer. 
The FCA is via the conduct of business regs.

I am sure the FCA isn't dictating that level of detail, I'm basing that on the fact that between us we are consolidating five pensions into SIPPs. Of these five only one asked any sort of questions, and they weren't as intrusive as those.  For example they asked if we were aware of the fees, rather than asking us what they were.  The other providers, Legal & General, Aviva in two different forms, and Royal London just went ahead. If these questions, which I agree seem none of their business, were dictated by FCA then surely all five providers would have followed the same process.

dunstonh

I am sure the FCA isn't dictating that level of detail, I'm basing that on the fact that between us we are consolidating five pensions into SIPPs. Of these five only one asked any sort of questions,

Did the other four use Origo?

The other providers, Legal & General, Aviva in two different forms, and Royal London just went ahead. If these questions, which I agree seem none of their business, were dictated by FCA then surely all five providers would have followed the same process.

The FCA does not dictate what questions to ask.  It sets guidelines and says it wants improvements but it leave the questions to ask to the providers and when they should be asked. So, providers will have different ways of doing this and providers will often have multiple tiers of checking depending on the circumstances.