pension - detailed statements including unit price and number of units

peteasa

I recently move three separate pensions into a new SIPP. I received all the proper transfer quotations and proceeded with my transfers. Two of the companies sent a closing statement with the value of the transfer and the third failed to send me a statement of the actual transferred value. One company stated "I assure you if we later find we've made any mistakes, we will of course put these right." After asking for a statement, and later complaining to, the third company stated "we recognise that without sending the type of document you've described, you could only assume that we'd included all the money you were entitled to in the transfer payment". I still do not have an official value for the actual transfer from the third company even after the complaint response was received.

My question to anyone who reads this is: have you experienced similar lack of information from pension companies? Does anyone know what the legal requirements are for informing customers of the contract statements from investments?  If so where is that legal requirement documented?  Why do pension companies now not send detailed statements with the value per unit and the number of units?

My takeaway from my experience is that before transferring from a pension provider - please login to the online portal make sure you download all the unit and price information and the last years history - from the providers web site - they will cancel your login before the final transfer and you will not be able to track your investments.

peteasa

Just a quick note - in case you do not work it out - the pensions I am talking about are defined contribution pensions where I, and the various companies I have worked for, have invested money in a set of pension funds over the years.  In the past the companies provided more detailed annual statements, in recent years the information in these statements have reduced significantly.  These "final" statements are much worse than I had expected to receive!  Looking at complaints and resolutions on the  Ombudsman web site it appears that the quality of information available to previous customers was much better.  With the information that I have been provided it would be very hard to make a similar complaint today backed up with concrete evidence.

dunstonh

 Two of the companies sent a closing statement with the value of the transfer and the third failed to send me a statement of the actual transferred value. One company stated "I assure you if we later find we've made any mistakes, we will of course put these right." After asking for a statement, and later complaining to, the third company stated "we recognise that without sending the type of document you've described, you could only assume that we'd included all the money you were entitled to in the transfer payment". I still do not have an official value for the actual transfer from the third company even after the complaint response was received.

Some providers will send a closing statement very quickly after sending the funds.   Others will wait until their normal statement run.     Increasingly common (especially with SIPPs) is that the pension doesn't get closed on transfer but remains open for 6-12 months (sometimes until you eventually clear it and ask for it to be closed) just in case there are further distributions that arrive after the transfer date.

My question to anyone who reads this is: have you experienced similar lack of information from pension companies?

I don't know how many thousands of pensions that I have transferred over the years but never had a problem with audit trail.

Does anyone know what the legal requirements are for informing customers of the contract statements from investments?

There are no laws in this respect.

Why do pension companies now not send detailed statements with the value per unit and the number of units?

Older plans that were built in a different era tend to have limited information.   Modern plans tend to have everything you would expect.       If you have a black and white TV, you shouldn't expect it magically turn into an Ultra UD widescreen.      Pension products reflect their age and expectations at the time.      Some providers try their best to make legacy plans work with modern software but sometimes it ends up being a fudge and leads to misinformation.  

peteasa

Thanks,  good to hear that at least some people get sufficient information.  

In my specific case this has not been my experience.  By the comments I got from the pension providers they are acknowledging the fact that they have not provided sufficient information - one provider stated: "we recognise that without sending the type of document you've described, you could only assume that we'd included all the money you were entitled to in the transfer payment"

This comment came from a pension provider that I started using about 6 years ago.

Older plans that were built in a different era tend to have limited information.   Modern plans tend to have everything you would expect.       If you have a black and white TV, you shouldn't expect it magically turn into an Ultra UD widescreen.      Pension products reflect their age and expectations at the time.      Some providers try their best to make legacy plans work with modern software but sometimes it ends up being a fudge and leads to misinformation. 

My assumption is that a pension started 6 years ago does not count as an "Older plan".  This is the provider that did provide lots of information online whilst I had the policy but provided no information after I closed it.

dunstonh

In my specific case this has not been my experience.  By the comments I got from the pension providers they are acknowledging the fact that they have not provided sufficient information - one provider stated: "we recognise that without sending the type of document you've described, you could only assume that we'd included all the money you were entitled to in the transfer payment"
This comment came from a pension provider that I started using about 6 years ago.

Complaints handlers are taught to be very agreeable and will often tell you something that sounds like an apology but is really just an acknowledgement.

My assumption is that a pension started 6 years ago does not count as an "Older plan".  This is the provider that did provide lots of information online whilst I had the policy but provided no information after I closed itDepends on whether it was a plan that was coded and new 6 years ago or one that the provider had already had for a decade and was close to putting it to sleep whilst they launch their new version.    There are still some products available from over 20 years ago and act the same way they did 20 years ago.

its not when you buy it but when the plan was created.

peteasa

As I said .. I started in the scheme about 6 years ago.  The pension fund itself started about 10 years ago.. so this is not an old fund.  Some of the pensions that I started longer ago provided better information.  This fund actually under the hood is I think 3 separate investments.  They bundle the three together swapping money from one to the other at predefined intervals (I was a fool and selected "lifestyling".. not what I would recommend to someone unless they understood what that means and where happy).

My main point is that over time all the pension companies have reduced the level of information or audit trail, that they provide.  I find it hard to see how anyone could make a concrete fact based complaint because the level of information provided to the average customer is much reduced - I got no hint of unit prices when the transfer took place - I got no hint of number of units sold - because of lifestyling the number of units changes in the year - I got no hint of the number of units sold / purchased in the last couple of years with respect to the lifestyling.  Looking at the complaints and findings published www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk.  I can see, and I know from my own experience, that in the past the information provided by pension providers was more detailed.

So my question to anyone other than @dunstonh who stumbles on this thread is ... am I the only one who thinks this a bit strange:- that pension companies are providing less information than ever?   A more cynical person might say that they have a vested interest in providing as little as possible to ensure that 

a) they do not misrepresent the value of the product that they are offering.

b) they do not get inundated with complains when they get it wrong or make mistakes.

c) they simply do not need to.. the less said the better - perhaps??

However from the customer perspective... when I go to a shop if the price is not marked on the product, or if there is no guarantee or warranty I think twice about purchasing.  when I make an investment, if there is no second alternative source for investment information like the FT web site, I think twice about investing.  But some pension companies do not publish SEDOL numbers for the investments that they use in a product, and provide no public information about unit prices, and when you leave the scheme they provide no audit trail to follow.  (And one that I am thinking of is a well known and respected pension provider)...  How do they get away with it?  Does everyone just trust the financial advisor who sounds confident and well spoken and literate (far better than the over the phone support you sometimes get from call centres)?  

I am interested to hear if anyone else has had the same impression: that pension providers are providing less and less information about the products they offer.. even to the customers who they rely on!

dunstonh

As I said .. I started in the scheme about 6 years ago.  The pension fund itself started about 10 years ago.. so this is not an old fund.

10 years ago could make it an older style plan in terms of software.   Especially if it is an insurance company plan.

Some of the pensions that I started longer ago provided better information. 

Some saw what was happening with software and made it modular and easily coded for changes.    Others didn't and run it on obsolete software that is too expensive to recode on legacy plans.

My main point is that over time all the pension companies have reduced the level of information or audit trail, that they provide. 

I would adjust that to say that is what you feel is the case.  It wouldn't be the case for the wider industry though.  Indeed, for many, there has never been so much information available.

 But some pension companies do not publish SEDOL numbers for the investments that they use in a product,

That only happens with legacy pension funds and some occupational/workplace pensions.

 Does everyone just trust the financial advisor who sounds confident and well spoken and literate (far better than the over the phone support you sometimes get from call centres)?  

If there is a financial adviser, then they are likely to have access to greater audit trails than you.   Many providers (apart from legacy plans) will port daily information into the adviser's software.

I am interested to hear if anyone else has had the same impression: that pension providers are providing less and less information about the products they offer.. even to the customers who they rely on!

Well, you know my answer is no.   In my experience with providers, they are getting better and better all the time.  However, older coded plans do still lack data (or you have to fight to get it) and there are a few providers that are difficult and lacking.    I do tend to find the robo-providers are the worst when it comes to data provision.

peteasa

I can see that @dunstonh is a very prolific contributor to this forum, however this does not mean that he is accurate.  I recently (2023) started a pension with a well known provider that I have used in the past.  On this occasion I used a well known firm of financial advisors.  The pension was applied for in June 2023 however the company only managed to setup the pension in November.  The financial advisor told me that the delay was not unusual.. the advisor said recently (since covid) these large organisation have had a lot of difficulties with the admin and so simple jobs have been considerably delayed.  The financial advisor has been unable to provide me with any information about the new pension that has been setup.  

In my experience the providers are getting worse and worse over time.

I am interested to hear if anyone else has had the same impression: that pension providers are providing less and less information about the products they offer.. even to the customers who they rely on!

dunstonh

I can see that @dunstonh is a very prolific contributor to this forum, however this does not mean that he is accurate.  I recently (2023) started a pension with a well known provider that I have used in the past.  On this occasion I used a well known firm of financial advisors.  The pension was applied for in June 2023 however the company only managed to setup the pension in November.  The financial advisor told me that the delay was not unusual.. the advisor said recently (since covid) these large organisation have had a lot of difficulties with the admin and so simple jobs have been considerably delayed.  The financial advisor has been unable to provide me with any information about the new pension that has been setup.  

Name them.    Your mention of FA rather than IFA and "well-known firm" reduces the potential list significantly.   SJP comes to mind.   And their product is set up in the old fashioned way.   

An application in June and set up in November suggests poor admin or a transfer was involved that didn't use Origo or had red or amber flags or was coming from an occupational pension with "professional trustees" (they are notoriously slow across most of them).

An FA also only has access to their linked provider (IFAs being whole of market).  So, when an FA is giving an excuse or explanation, they are only referring to their linked company as they do not use providers across the marketplace.  So, they don't have a clue what other companies are doing and what any potential causes are.    For example, I keyed in a single premium on Thursday AM last week, and it was set up instantly, and the money applied on Thursday PM.   Another provider saw me email the provider with the forms on Monday (emailing forms is unusual, but that provider is not a platform - which is unusual nowadays), and they have already messaged back saying the funds have been requested from the ceding scheme via Origo.   It's coming from Aviva.  So, that will only take about 2-3 days.

As for my knowledge, I have set up thousands of pensions and dealt with transfers from many more than that.  I haven't used every provider for setting up but I have experienced an extremely wide range of providers for transferring out. I have been doing it since the mid 90s.   So, my comments are based on many thousands of cases across multiple decades.   How many pensions do you have experience of?

I am surprised others haven't joined the conversation to give their experience.  However, there is a core group of regular contributors here, and we know the platforms they use, and those platforms give full transaction listings.

In my experience the providers are getting worse and worse over time.

Name the providers.   It will help identify if you are using older style "products" rather than "platforms" or if they are robo-providers (some of which are light on the data they give).

dealyboy

Hi @peteasa ... Welcome to the forum ...

Indeed ... as I'm sure you know, people are not slow in coming forward with their opinions, even in the presence of @dunstonh.

I'm personally not qualified to make comments about regulatory matters and have limited knowledge of SIPPs and DC schemes, not enough to make broad conclusions. However if other qualified IFAs, or greatly experienced professionals thought they could add to dunstonh, they surely would and have done in the past ... the 'I' (Independent) is a badge of honour.

Pat38493

I have only done 1 tranfer so far - the sending provider (Aviva) sent me a letter with the transfer value and details (there was only one fund so it was pretty simple).