Grrrr.... Willis Towers Watson...

HeyYeah

I just transferred one dc pension from WTW to another dc scheme with WTW, both were company pensions. The process was also glacial, eventually I just rang them up every Wednesday to work out what was going on. I think it took 2-3 months.

The most surreal occurrence was when I phoned to discuss DC1 pension, but was told by the call centre employee (let’s call her ‘emily’) that I needed to speak to someone from DC2 pension. So I was transferred to someone from the DC2 pension, who turned out to be Emily! She was then able to help me.

There was definitely a check box exercise going on which made it very stressful. Clearly they knew I was who I said I was and exactly who my employers were, but we had to go through the whole charade of sending payslips, passport photos, and all the other stuff! 

SouthCoastBoy

HeyYeah said:

I just transferred one dc pension from WTW to another dc scheme with WTW, both were company pensions. The process was also glacial, eventually I just rang them up every Wednesday to work out what was going on. I think it took 2-3 months.

The most surreal occurrence was when I phoned to discuss DC1 pension, but was told by the call centre employee (let’s call her ‘emily’) that I needed to speak to someone from DC2 pension. So I was transferred to someone from the DC2 pension, who turned out to be Emily! She was then able to help me.

There was definitely a check box exercise going on which made it very stressful. Clearly they knew I was who I said I was and exactly who my employers were, but we had to go through the whole charade of sending payslips, passport photos, and all the other stuff! 

Was that a current employer? As I have no payslips for previous employers.

So she transferred her to herself?

AlanP_2

SouthCoastBoy said:

HeyYeah said:

I just transferred one dc pension from WTW to another dc scheme with WTW, both were company pensions. The process was also glacial, eventually I just rang them up every Wednesday to work out what was going on. I think it took 2-3 months.

The most surreal occurrence was when I phoned to discuss DC1 pension, but was told by the call centre employee (let’s call her ‘emily’) that I needed to speak to someone from DC2 pension. So I was transferred to someone from the DC2 pension, who turned out to be Emily! She was then able to help me.

There was definitely a check box exercise going on which made it very stressful. Clearly they knew I was who I said I was and exactly who my employers were, but we had to go through the whole charade of sending payslips, passport photos, and all the other stuff! 

So she transferred her to herself?

The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum!

eastcorkram

Not wishing to transfer anything, but have an old deferred DB with WTW. 

This has a NRA of 65. Which is when I would like it to commence payment. That'll be in 2025. 

How far in advance should I notify WTW about that? And are there loads of hoops to jump through, before they'll actually start paying it? It isn't very big, but does form an important part of retirement income. 

Tommyjw

artyboy said:

Marcon said:

artyboy said:

WTW might be familiar to you as they are administrators for many occupational pension schemes. Specifically, they administered the scheme for my last employer, and I've got a sizeable amount that I want to move out.

"Glacial" doesn't even begin to cut it in describing their pace. Not to mention how unnecessarily complicated they make everything - I requested a transfer out so I could be shot of them, and their response to me included 14 separate document attachments. Only 2 required any action. And one of those I had to pick through the bits that were needed with no guidance.

And I've done a fair few transfers in the past year, but this was the only one where the administrators insisted that I sent them a copy of my passport, so they knew it really was me making the request 

And now, 2 months on, they write to me saying that, as my receiving scheme (an II SIPP) contains "overseas investments", then I have to have a Pension Safeguarding Guidance session with MoneyHelper. Or sign yet another form to opt out.

Are these guys serious?? Firstly it's a cash transfer so it's not like the transfer is directly into anything 'overseas'. And secondly, I'd be surprised if ANY pension these days didn't have overseas investments within it. So on the off chance this is a real regulatory requirement, why didn't they include this information/opt out form in the initial pack they sent me??

As you can tell, this is a bit of a Friday morning rant, but this is just one of a number of issues I've had with WTW, and I can't wait to get shot of them 😡

They are following hopelessly heavy-handed and frankly plain daft regulations. They can't win. If they follow them, people like you (understandably) start raging; if they don't and something goes wrong, doubtless you'll be first in the queue for 'compensation'.

Get the paperwork completed and returned and don't waste your time ranting about something which isn't their fault.

D'you know Marcon... immediately after getting this off my chest, that's exactly what I did.

And then, because I can't help myself, I decided to revisit the documentation I previously completed. First thing, I should acknowledge that it was 'only' 12 attachments they sent me, not 14. So that's alright then.

But then I found it - the PensionWise opt out that I signed and sent back to them. Although of course it wasn't the same opt out that I got this time, because the new one came with a bunch of 'on my own head be it' warnings, plus pointing out that the transfer would be discretionary rather than statutory.

So, that's 2 opt outs for me now, they could I suppose have put the correct legalese in the first one, but why would they do that...? After all, it can't be more than 99.9% of transfers out that would require it...

Give me strength. Muppets...

The first opt out form will be for general pension wise nudge, where the leiglsation requires them to ask you to confirm if you have or have't asked spoken to them. See: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps21-21-stronger-nudge-pensions-guidance-feedback-cp21-11-and-final-rules-and-guidance#:~:text=From 1 June 2022 pensions,and purpose of this guidance.

The second is specific to the MoneyHelper amber flag requirement found because of the overseas investment, see: https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/scheme-management-detailed-guidance/administration-detailed-guidance/dealing-with-transfer-requests 

So in both cases this is not a WTW problem, they are following the rules.

dunstonh

Tommyjw said:

artyboy said:

Marcon said:

artyboy said:

WTW might be familiar to you as they are administrators for many occupational pension schemes. Specifically, they administered the scheme for my last employer, and I've got a sizeable amount that I want to move out.

"Glacial" doesn't even begin to cut it in describing their pace. Not to mention how unnecessarily complicated they make everything - I requested a transfer out so I could be shot of them, and their response to me included 14 separate document attachments. Only 2 required any action. And one of those I had to pick through the bits that were needed with no guidance.

And I've done a fair few transfers in the past year, but this was the only one where the administrators insisted that I sent them a copy of my passport, so they knew it really was me making the request 

And now, 2 months on, they write to me saying that, as my receiving scheme (an II SIPP) contains "overseas investments", then I have to have a Pension Safeguarding Guidance session with MoneyHelper. Or sign yet another form to opt out.

Are these guys serious?? Firstly it's a cash transfer so it's not like the transfer is directly into anything 'overseas'. And secondly, I'd be surprised if ANY pension these days didn't have overseas investments within it. So on the off chance this is a real regulatory requirement, why didn't they include this information/opt out form in the initial pack they sent me??

As you can tell, this is a bit of a Friday morning rant, but this is just one of a number of issues I've had with WTW, and I can't wait to get shot of them 😡

They are following hopelessly heavy-handed and frankly plain daft regulations. They can't win. If they follow them, people like you (understandably) start raging; if they don't and something goes wrong, doubtless you'll be first in the queue for 'compensation'.

Get the paperwork completed and returned and don't waste your time ranting about something which isn't their fault.

D'you know Marcon... immediately after getting this off my chest, that's exactly what I did.

And then, because I can't help myself, I decided to revisit the documentation I previously completed. First thing, I should acknowledge that it was 'only' 12 attachments they sent me, not 14. So that's alright then.

But then I found it - the PensionWise opt out that I signed and sent back to them. Although of course it wasn't the same opt out that I got this time, because the new one came with a bunch of 'on my own head be it' warnings, plus pointing out that the transfer would be discretionary rather than statutory.

So, that's 2 opt outs for me now, they could I suppose have put the correct legalese in the first one, but why would they do that...? After all, it can't be more than 99.9% of transfers out that would require it...

Give me strength. Muppets...

The first opt out form will be for general pension wise nudge, where the leiglsation requires them to ask you to confirm if you have or have't asked spoken to them. See: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps21-21-stronger-nudge-pensions-guidance-feedback-cp21-11-and-final-rules-and-guidance#:~:text=From 1 June 2022 pensions,and purpose of this guidance.

The second is specific to the MoneyHelper amber flag requirement found because of the overseas investment, see: https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/scheme-management-detailed-guidance/administration-detailed-guidance/dealing-with-transfer-requests 

So in both cases this is not a WTW problem, they are following the rules.

The rules also allow them to avoid both of those things if they decide the risk is low.     

So, whilst you are correct in saying that they are following the rules, they are also ignoring the rules that allow them to apply common sense and discretion.

Tommyjw

dunstonh said:

Tommyjw said:

artyboy said:

Marcon said:

artyboy said:

WTW might be familiar to you as they are administrators for many occupational pension schemes. Specifically, they administered the scheme for my last employer, and I've got a sizeable amount that I want to move out.

"Glacial" doesn't even begin to cut it in describing their pace. Not to mention how unnecessarily complicated they make everything - I requested a transfer out so I could be shot of them, and their response to me included 14 separate document attachments. Only 2 required any action. And one of those I had to pick through the bits that were needed with no guidance.

And I've done a fair few transfers in the past year, but this was the only one where the administrators insisted that I sent them a copy of my passport, so they knew it really was me making the request 

And now, 2 months on, they write to me saying that, as my receiving scheme (an II SIPP) contains "overseas investments", then I have to have a Pension Safeguarding Guidance session with MoneyHelper. Or sign yet another form to opt out.

Are these guys serious?? Firstly it's a cash transfer so it's not like the transfer is directly into anything 'overseas'. And secondly, I'd be surprised if ANY pension these days didn't have overseas investments within it. So on the off chance this is a real regulatory requirement, why didn't they include this information/opt out form in the initial pack they sent me??

As you can tell, this is a bit of a Friday morning rant, but this is just one of a number of issues I've had with WTW, and I can't wait to get shot of them 😡

They are following hopelessly heavy-handed and frankly plain daft regulations. They can't win. If they follow them, people like you (understandably) start raging; if they don't and something goes wrong, doubtless you'll be first in the queue for 'compensation'.

Get the paperwork completed and returned and don't waste your time ranting about something which isn't their fault.

D'you know Marcon... immediately after getting this off my chest, that's exactly what I did.

And then, because I can't help myself, I decided to revisit the documentation I previously completed. First thing, I should acknowledge that it was 'only' 12 attachments they sent me, not 14. So that's alright then.

But then I found it - the PensionWise opt out that I signed and sent back to them. Although of course it wasn't the same opt out that I got this time, because the new one came with a bunch of 'on my own head be it' warnings, plus pointing out that the transfer would be discretionary rather than statutory.

So, that's 2 opt outs for me now, they could I suppose have put the correct legalese in the first one, but why would they do that...? After all, it can't be more than 99.9% of transfers out that would require it...

Give me strength. Muppets...

The first opt out form will be for general pension wise nudge, where the leiglsation requires them to ask you to confirm if you have or have't asked spoken to them. See: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps21-21-stronger-nudge-pensions-guidance-feedback-cp21-11-and-final-rules-and-guidance#:~:text=From 1 June 2022 pensions,and purpose of this guidance.

The second is specific to the MoneyHelper amber flag requirement found because of the overseas investment, see: https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/scheme-management-detailed-guidance/administration-detailed-guidance/dealing-with-transfer-requests 

So in both cases this is not a WTW problem, they are following the rules.

The rules also allow them to avoid both of those things if they decide the risk is low.     

So, whilst you are correct in saying that they are following the rules, they are also ignoring the rules that allow them to apply common sense and discretion.

Incorrect on the stronger nudge, it is a requirement for them to ask and get an answer. It is no problem if a member says they havent spoken to Pensionwise, but they do have to say one way or the other.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, whilst an individual Trustee can ultimately decide to allow amber flags to float through with no MoneyHelper requirement, all they are doing then is opening themselves up to complete liability and indeed one of my clients has specifically received legal advide that if an amber flag is found, providing a new "sign this form to discharge us of liabiltiy so you dont have to do the MoneyHelper call" is extremely legally untested and unwise.

To reinforce the above, these are decisions on individual Scheme levels. WTW as administrators will have their view but if a Trustee decided to go a different route they would follow that, I imagine WTW has gone to the Trustee of this particular pension scheme and all others and asked what they would like to do regarding these amber flags, and like every single Scheme i've touched, they have decided to follow the legislation.

Ultimately therefore, why bother with the potential hastle in opening up your Scheme which you have a responsibility for to all kinds of unknown future claims, when quite literally all you're asking someone to do is have a telephone call.

artyboy

Tommyjw said:

artyboy said:

Marcon said:

artyboy said:

WTW might be familiar to you as they are administrators for many occupational pension schemes. Specifically, they administered the scheme for my last employer, and I've got a sizeable amount that I want to move out.

"Glacial" doesn't even begin to cut it in describing their pace. Not to mention how unnecessarily complicated they make everything - I requested a transfer out so I could be shot of them, and their response to me included 14 separate document attachments. Only 2 required any action. And one of those I had to pick through the bits that were needed with no guidance.

And I've done a fair few transfers in the past year, but this was the only one where the administrators insisted that I sent them a copy of my passport, so they knew it really was me making the request 

And now, 2 months on, they write to me saying that, as my receiving scheme (an II SIPP) contains "overseas investments", then I have to have a Pension Safeguarding Guidance session with MoneyHelper. Or sign yet another form to opt out.

Are these guys serious?? Firstly it's a cash transfer so it's not like the transfer is directly into anything 'overseas'. And secondly, I'd be surprised if ANY pension these days didn't have overseas investments within it. So on the off chance this is a real regulatory requirement, why didn't they include this information/opt out form in the initial pack they sent me??

As you can tell, this is a bit of a Friday morning rant, but this is just one of a number of issues I've had with WTW, and I can't wait to get shot of them 😡

They are following hopelessly heavy-handed and frankly plain daft regulations. They can't win. If they follow them, people like you (understandably) start raging; if they don't and something goes wrong, doubtless you'll be first in the queue for 'compensation'.

Get the paperwork completed and returned and don't waste your time ranting about something which isn't their fault.

D'you know Marcon... immediately after getting this off my chest, that's exactly what I did.

And then, because I can't help myself, I decided to revisit the documentation I previously completed. First thing, I should acknowledge that it was 'only' 12 attachments they sent me, not 14. So that's alright then.

But then I found it - the PensionWise opt out that I signed and sent back to them. Although of course it wasn't the same opt out that I got this time, because the new one came with a bunch of 'on my own head be it' warnings, plus pointing out that the transfer would be discretionary rather than statutory.

So, that's 2 opt outs for me now, they could I suppose have put the correct legalese in the first one, but why would they do that...? After all, it can't be more than 99.9% of transfers out that would require it...

Give me strength. Muppets...

The first opt out form will be for general pension wise nudge, where the leiglsation requires them to ask you to confirm if you have or have't asked spoken to them. See: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps21-21-stronger-nudge-pensions-guidance-feedback-cp21-11-and-final-rules-and-guidance#:~:text=From 1 June 2022 pensions,and purpose of this guidance.

The second is specific to the MoneyHelper amber flag requirement found because of the overseas investment, see: https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/scheme-management-detailed-guidance/administration-detailed-guidance/dealing-with-transfer-requests 

So in both cases this is not a WTW problem, they are following the rules.

Well ok, let's set aside the fact that WTW could at the very least join the dots that their own overzealous due diligence means that the second version will almost always be needed - and perhaps include it up front.

Let's even leave aside dunstonh's good point that they could take a far more pragmatic approach.

Let's instead look at the wording behind this Amber flag for Overseas investments:

Amber flag 6: Overseas investments are included in the scheme

The specific concern here is not whether the investment is in, for example, a global equity fund but whether the investment is in assets or funds where there is a lax, or non-existent, regulatory environment or in jurisdictions which allow opaque corporate structures. After carrying out due diligence you may consider the transfer is at a low risk of a scam and, where your scheme rules allow, you may consider granting a discretionary transfer.

Some overseas advisers recommend members invest their pension funds in an offshore investment bond in an international self-invested personal pension. The FCA has warned that this may expose members to high or unnecessary charges and has stated that the tax benefits of such arrangements are redundant for a member investing in a UK personal pension.

So... not the fact that they are overseas, but that they might be funds in jurisdictions with poor regulatory oversight. I'd wager that there are no such funds available to retail investors through a U.K. regulated SIPP provider such as II. So why is this flag even being triggered? Having an Irish domiciled fund that invests amongst other things in Tesla, Apple and the like, is hardly in scope of what is set out in the official guidance!

Tommyjw

artyboy said:

Tommyjw said:

artyboy said:

Marcon said:

artyboy said:

WTW might be familiar to you as they are administrators for many occupational pension schemes. Specifically, they administered the scheme for my last employer, and I've got a sizeable amount that I want to move out.

"Glacial" doesn't even begin to cut it in describing their pace. Not to mention how unnecessarily complicated they make everything - I requested a transfer out so I could be shot of them, and their response to me included 14 separate document attachments. Only 2 required any action. And one of those I had to pick through the bits that were needed with no guidance.

And I've done a fair few transfers in the past year, but this was the only one where the administrators insisted that I sent them a copy of my passport, so they knew it really was me making the request 

And now, 2 months on, they write to me saying that, as my receiving scheme (an II SIPP) contains "overseas investments", then I have to have a Pension Safeguarding Guidance session with MoneyHelper. Or sign yet another form to opt out.

Are these guys serious?? Firstly it's a cash transfer so it's not like the transfer is directly into anything 'overseas'. And secondly, I'd be surprised if ANY pension these days didn't have overseas investments within it. So on the off chance this is a real regulatory requirement, why didn't they include this information/opt out form in the initial pack they sent me??

As you can tell, this is a bit of a Friday morning rant, but this is just one of a number of issues I've had with WTW, and I can't wait to get shot of them 😡

They are following hopelessly heavy-handed and frankly plain daft regulations. They can't win. If they follow them, people like you (understandably) start raging; if they don't and something goes wrong, doubtless you'll be first in the queue for 'compensation'.

Get the paperwork completed and returned and don't waste your time ranting about something which isn't their fault.

D'you know Marcon... immediately after getting this off my chest, that's exactly what I did.

And then, because I can't help myself, I decided to revisit the documentation I previously completed. First thing, I should acknowledge that it was 'only' 12 attachments they sent me, not 14. So that's alright then.

But then I found it - the PensionWise opt out that I signed and sent back to them. Although of course it wasn't the same opt out that I got this time, because the new one came with a bunch of 'on my own head be it' warnings, plus pointing out that the transfer would be discretionary rather than statutory.

So, that's 2 opt outs for me now, they could I suppose have put the correct legalese in the first one, but why would they do that...? After all, it can't be more than 99.9% of transfers out that would require it...

Give me strength. Muppets...

The first opt out form will be for general pension wise nudge, where the leiglsation requires them to ask you to confirm if you have or have't asked spoken to them. See: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps21-21-stronger-nudge-pensions-guidance-feedback-cp21-11-and-final-rules-and-guidance#:~:text=From 1 June 2022 pensions,and purpose of this guidance.

The second is specific to the MoneyHelper amber flag requirement found because of the overseas investment, see: https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/scheme-management-detailed-guidance/administration-detailed-guidance/dealing-with-transfer-requests 

So in both cases this is not a WTW problem, they are following the rules.

Well ok, let's set aside the fact that WTW could at the very least join the dots that their own overzealous due diligence means that the second version will almost always be needed - and perhaps include it up front.

Let's even leave aside dunstonh's good point that they could take a far more pragmatic approach.

Let's instead look at the wording behind this Amber flag for Overseas investments:

Amber flag 6: Overseas investments are included in the scheme

The specific concern here is not whether the investment is in, for example, a global equity fund but whether the investment is in assets or funds where there is a lax, or non-existent, regulatory environment or in jurisdictions which allow opaque corporate structures. After carrying out due diligence you may consider the transfer is at a low risk of a scam and, where your scheme rules allow, you may consider granting a discretionary transfer.

Some overseas advisers recommend members invest their pension funds in an offshore investment bond in an international self-invested personal pension. The FCA has warned that this may expose members to high or unnecessary charges and has stated that the tax benefits of such arrangements are redundant for a member investing in a UK personal pension.

So... not the fact that they are overseas, but that they might be funds in jurisdictions with poor regulatory oversight. I'd wager that there are no such funds available to retail investors through a U.K. regulated SIPP provider such as II. So why is this flag even being triggered? Having an Irish domiciled fund that invests amongst other things in Tesla, Apple and the like, is hardly in scope of what is set out in the official guidance!

Given you have already moaned on every single post about how much paperwork was sent, i reckon you'd have moaned yet again if they sent you every single form and guidance and note for every single possible amber flag outcome just so you have it in the first place.

And in any event, no they cant provide it in the first place, because the legislation states they need to inform members when an amber flag is raised. 

xylophone

How far in advance should I notify WTW about that? 

Presumably you have full details of this pension (Scheme name and member reference number/ years worked/ statement of deferred benefits)?

Do you receive any individual statements /scheme funding statements from WTW?

You could always contact WTW at least six months in advance of Scheme NRA and request a scheme retirement pack?