Pension transfer with GAR

Albermarle

It was a long time ago, she was much younger and pensions generally weren't exactly high profile at the time, so hardly surprising it's not something she instantly recalls with utter clarity - not many people would

Historically these big chemical companies looked after their employees very well, including generous defined benefit pension schemes. As you say most employees would probably not have been that aware of the pensions scheme, or how good it was ( similar to many public sector workers today).

For completeness ( it is an industry I worked in) Norsk Hydro ( UK and Norway HQ) were bought by Ineos in 2007 . The UK DB scheme continued for a few years, but after a stand off with the unions and threats to close the site ( usual Jim Ratcliffe tactics), the DB scheme was closed to new contributions and a new less generous DC scheme introduced, although there were a few sweeteners involved .

Diaz09

Worth bearing in mind that even though you might not legally need advice for the smaller pot on its own, Royal London can still insist on it if they think the GAR is valuable enough to warrant protection. Some providers are quite cautious about this regardless of the transfer value - they're basically covering themselves from potential complaints later if someone gives up a decent guarantee. The fact that she's got two separate policies shouldn't affect the £30k threshold as they're individual schemes, but the provider's own rules can be stricter than the regulatory minimums.

Also, this is worth a look: https://moneywiseuk.co.uk/consolidating-old-workplace-pensions-in-2026-is-it-worth-merging-your-pension-pots/

dunstonh

The fact that she's got two separate policies shouldn't affect the £30k threshold as they're individual schemes, but the provider's own rules can be stricter than the regulatory minimums.

The fact that one pot comes from contracting out of SERPS (protected rights / APP) and the other from personal contributions does not, by itself, make them separate schemes. Under many arrangements, protected‑rights and non‑protected‑rights benefits were held under the same overarching personal pension scheme but tracked in different sections, with different rules attached to each, and sometimes different GARs. From the perspective of the advice safeguard, both sets of rights are safeguarded if they include GARs, and if they are under the same scheme, their values are combined for the £30,000 test.

Marcon

Worth bearing in mind that even though you might not legally need advice for the smaller pot on its own, Royal London can still insist on it if they think the GAR is valuable enough to warrant protection. Some providers are quite cautious about this regardless of the transfer value - they're basically covering themselves from potential complaints later if someone gives up a decent guarantee.

No, they can't. If someone has a statutory right to transfer, a provider can't arbitrarily impose conditions which are not a legal requirement. Their 'protection' - should it be needed - is that they couldn't refuse unless certain 'red flags' are present. If someone refuses to take advice when there's no legal requirement to do so, that is not a red flag.

The fact that she's got two separate policies shouldn't affect the £30k threshold as they're individual schemes, but the provider's own rules can be stricter than the regulatory minimums.

Providers can't make up the rules in respect of transfers out (although they can in relation to transfers in - unless they are a stakeholder pension, which has to accept transfers from any UK registered pension scheme)…and as @dunstonh has patiently explained above, these aren't individual schemes.