Ros is going after the bad guys

But bit by bit her agenda is gradually emerging.

There were rumours of her clashing with the Treasury over the ill-conceived plans for a pensions Isa.

She has kicked defined ambition pensions into the long grass.

And she is tackling the misleading information that has led to widespread confusion over the new state pension.

But it is her intervention over historic exit penalties that could provide the biggest bonus to those approaching retirement.

She told a national newspaper that some of the fees would “never have been allowed” had consumers understood them at the time the policies were sold.

“Some insurers are being fair, writing off some of their back book and bringing down the old legacy charges. That’s great – they get it,” she added.

The implication was that those who are not could get a nasty shock if they do not start to play fair with their customers.

She described her comments as a “wake-up call to the industry”.

I have made the point before, but it is worth making again. If an insurer cannot turn a decent profit from a pension after 20 or 30 years, then there is something wrong with the way that company has been run.

Their overheads may have been too high, perhaps they paid too much in commission, maybe they relied too much on generating new business – or possibly the directors were just plain incompetent.

Whatever the reason, there can be no justification for charging exit penalties on policies sold two, three or even four decades ago.

There can be no justification for charging exit penalties on policies sold two, three or even four decades ago

Nor should excessive and complex charges still be levied. It is unacceptable that investors have billions trapped in these legacy policies.

Baroness Altmann should start by calling the bosses of the errant companies into her office and knocking their heads together.

If that does not work then some form of legislation should follow.

There has been a huge effort to create a landscape where those who save in the future can do so with more confidence.

But all this will be undermined if younger savers continue to hear tales from parents, aunts, uncles and older friends of how they are still being ripped off on a pension they took out years ago.

______________________________________________________________________________

Hannant in denial without a paddle

There is a lovely little shop in our local high street full of imaginative gifts and attractive ornaments.

But Mrs H will not go in – and judging by how often I have passed it and see it empty bar the shop assistant – neither will anyone else.

Sadly, I am predicting it will join the host of retailers who have gone out of business.

What deters us? Well, nothing has a price on it.

A recent Which? report on disclosure of the cost of advice claimed that 70 per cent of the 500 advice firms websites examined did not publish charges.

Even more extraordinary were the 12 per cent of firms who refused to give any idea of costs when contacted.

Apfa director general Chris Hannant described the report as “utterly misleading”, justifying his comment by the fact that advisers must disclose charges face-to-face.

Well, we live in a world where people increasingly do their initial research online.

And, like it or not, most people prefer to know how much something costs before making contact.

If advisers want to attract people to use their services they must be willing to give them some idea of how much they can expect to pay.

Mr Hannant described the Which? press release as “a bit murky”. I would suggest the only murky thing is the attitude of advisers who are unwilling to disclose their charges when asked.

And for the head of their trade body to suggest otherwise is, frankly, extraordinary.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I blame estate agents

When mortgage regulation was proposed I was against it. I felt that mortgages were well understood by the vast majority of consumers and that the market – and self-regulation – in general worked well.

Sadly a few bad apples, mostly connected with estate agents, ruined it for everyone else. Their antics, which included falsifying incomes and forcing home-hunters to use their services meant that regulation became inevitable.

Now borrowing is more complex and time-consuming and fees have soared. It is difficult to see how most consumers have benefited.

The FCA is currently looking at mortgage market competition. Whatever the outcome of this let us hope that it does not again end up costing borrowers more.