PensionsSep 18 2019

Your Shout: Letters to the editor

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Your Shout: Letters to the editor
comment-speech

New minister, same problems

With reference to the appointment of Thérèse Coffey to the role of work and pensions secretary (9 September), I would like to add that among a raft of other issues, it is my hope that she understands the injustice of the 1950s women’s state pension age changes.

If she is merely intent on spouting the usual DWP garbage then she will have 3.8m very unhappy women knocking at her door.

The result of the judicial review is due at any time, and the impact of this will be immense. It cannot but find that an injustice has been done to us and at last the parliamentary ombudsman will also have to make a decision.

We are not going away.

Bridget Green

 

Useful information

Firstly I would like to thank you for the article “Five things to watch when setting up an LPA” into lasting powers of attorney (September 10) and offering well set-out, and easy to read advice to customers.

More information in the area is vital and in my opinion lacking in the current media, especially with an ageing population and an increase in Alzheimer’s and dementia. 

However, while giving insights into what people can do with their LPA’s, there is no information on the pitfalls of what is being suggested, which I think should go hand-in-hand when giving advice.

For instance, in section 2, “Structure of the LPA”, when suggesting not to always use jointly and severally, this is a fair point, but the other options are far more risky.

If jointly is selected and one attorney cannot act, it will take out the other attorneys and the LPA will be at an end.

If the donor has lost capacity at this point it will mean applying to the court of protection.

Also, jointly for some and severally for others is equally as risky due to the wording required; if this is wrong (such as suggesting majority rule) this will need to be severed, meaning a (very) lengthy delay in registration and the LPA having restricted use.

Also in section 5, “No safeguards or protections”, there needs to be advice about what is and what is not acceptable, as a lot of things donors request in good faith would need to be severed by the court of protection, meaning a delay in registration and the wording they wanted is then missing from the LPA.

This would involve any wording going against the appointment type for attorneys, mentioning people to act who are not on the LPA, mention of articles not relating to LPA such as mentioning property on a health and welfare, or mentioning anything relating to euthanasia, to name a small selection.

This could maybe give readers the complete picture and help avoid some major pitfalls that they would not otherwise be aware of, while using the rest of the very helpful information in the article to benefit their choices into LPA’s.

Andrew Phipps

 

Advice on care

Great article “Advisers warned of care claims” (September 5). Thank you. Finally, “advisers have been told they must check all funding options available when advising clients on long-term care”.

My question is, how? How can advisers who do not specialise in care adequately consider NHS funding, local authority charging or Department for Work and Pensions benefit eligibility?

Answer: most can and in practice do not.

Too many times I am asked to speak to someone when it is too late. Wealth has already depleted or a property has been sold to pay care fees or buy a product without due consideration of the implications and possible options.

Unfortunately, telling advisers they must do something does not make them experts.

It is an unfair, unrealistic requirement. Online resources cannot meet a knowledge gap and regulated advisers do not have time for extra CPD.

Nothing replaces experience. Care is very specialised and advisers need to be doing it regularly to understand the system.

Nicola Taylor

Care Adviser Network

 

Cease and desist

Regarding the article about LEBC giving up defined benefit transfers following a Financial Conduct Authority review (September 6): Surely there is more to the story.

If the FCA asks a company to desist in an activity, is it not sensible for all those who recently received advice related to that activity to have it reviewed? 

Who will pay?

Antony Coyte

Drystone

 

Consider consumers

As the FCA teams make their way round the UK shutting DB transfer permissions, please spare a thought for the clients who are caught up in this debacle and are also being plunged into financial chaos – the majority who are in their sixties and trying to bridge the gap to state pension age.

Many of them have health issues and want to have a better quality of life.

They do not have million pound transfers, and they are not trying to buy a Ferrari.

They have been waiting patiently up to nine months for the release of pension monies and now their applications have been chucked out and they need to start from scratch while the cash-equivalent transfer values transfer deadline is running down the clock.

If it is one of the FCA’s primary duties to protect consumers this situation does not fit well with Treating Customers Fairly.

If a company is losing its DB permissions there should be an orderly wind down of existing applications, not a cliff-edge situation.

Again, if one of the two situations the FCA agrees that DB transfers should be considered extreme debt and failing health, why are we not using credit reports and medical reports as part of suitability?

Name and address supplied