Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Sorry bowlhead, I read your post but missed the bit where the layman finds a provider who will accept a transfer on HLs terms by contacting..who did you recommend?

I think the advice in the second paragraph of xylophone's post #130 is relevant.

Really you have two routes if you might want to do a regulated DB transfer despite advice against it:

1)
a) identify your preferred new pension provider;
b) ascertain exactly what documentation they would require to arrange a transfer against advice. If they will not entertain a transfer without advice, go back to (a) and repeat;
c) once the preferred provider has confirmed exactly what they would require (e.g. "your adviser must sign this proprietary form confirming X, Y, Z"), begin your search for advisers;
d) prior to engaging your preferred adviser, confirm that once they have provided you with the advice - and despite the nature of the advice - they will will provide the required declaration to the ceding and receiving schemes in the specific manner that those schemes prescribe, as identified in (1b) above.

or
2)
a) identify your preferred pensions transfer adviser;
b) ascertain exactly what documentation they would be willing to provide to a receiving scheme if they recommend against the transfer and you want to go ahead anyway;
c) if they confirm that they will only provide the bare minimum - a declaration that they provided advice, in their own proprietary format, begin your search for advisers that will accept that.
d) prior to engaging your preferred adviser, ensure you have identified at least one receiving scheme that you would be happy with (even if just for the short term) which is willing to accept the transfer if they receive the documentation in the specific manner agreed to be provided in (2b).

Whether you follow method 1 or method 2 - if you end up in a situation that the receiving scheme does not accept the adviser's documentation as being satisfactory, you could 'assign blame' by seeing whether it was the case that the adviser was now refusing to provide the exact documentation he had said he would provide, or was it that the receiving scheme was refusing to accept the exact documentation he had said he would accept.

If you spend thousands of pounds on an advice service that doesn't get you the outcome you want, it will be frustrating, so you should consider whether what you get from the process will allow you to succesfully hook up with the receiving scheme of your choice. If it won't, change the adviser of choice or the receiving scheme of choice. Absent some good luck, you may not be able to hook up with your first choice of both adviser and receiving scheme. I do agree with you that the fact that not all advisers and schemes will cooperate with each other to help you achieve your goals is a potential 'trap'. To avoid the 'trap', do the research up front.

I still agree with FOS that your duplication of advice fees was your fault for lack of research or your new scheme's fault for inflexibility of approach, rather than exclusively HL's fault for giving you a declaration that your new scheme didn't like.

ZingPowZing wrote: »

It would never occur to most outsiders that a financial adviser asked to sign a declaration stating that he had provided financial advice - knock yourself out!- should refuse yet still expect full payment for providing financial advice. I'm trying to think of its equivalent in another business.

In this example, as admitted by you and as highlighted in the FOS outcome report, the financial adviser provided a declaration stating that he had provided financial advice.

You tried to use that declaration to prove that you had received advice, and someone didn't accept it because they had inflexible policies.

You were desperate to convert your package of benefits to a cash sum as soon as possible so went and bought more advice rather than arguing with the person that they should accept the existing valid declaration, or picking a different scheme to transfer to.