This week...
Providers look out for themselves first
Regarding your article ‘Advisers slam Prudential service as a “land grab”’(Jun 25).
Your article provides a range of views that may all have some basis in fact.
Some of the larger providers have historically promised great new systems to benefit the adviser and plan holder, but unfortunately they used the new system as a platform for making clients choose between their adviser and doing it themselves online.
Providers will first and foremost look after their own interests while making all the right noises with the Financial Conduct Authority.
Some providers have improved online facilities, but this does not necessarily mean the plan holder’s needs are really met. The provider just relies on a tick-box questionnaire to cover its back, but the client can easily manipulate the questionnaire to justify cash withdrawal.
An IFA will know his client, including other holdings or lack thereof, and can more easily identify an insistent client.
With regard to Prudential, it has previously messed with the IFA-client relationship and it has taken some time for them to win back IFA trust. Let us hope this is not happening again.
Clive Fox
Good advisers lose out
Regarding your article ‘Charging ban to cost IFAs up to 400k a year’ (June 19).
A typical move from the FCA – rather than deal with the problematic advisers, it is easier for it to wield the sledge hammer to the whole market, to the detriment of clients and good advisers.
No consideration in this appears to be given to clients, especially those who are cash poor and pension rich when it remains good financial sense to transfer and is demonstrably in the client’s best interest.
If taking fees out of products that have benefited from tax relief is now bad advice, when will the same illogical decision be applied to defined contribution to DC transfers.
It seems to me that good advisers are continually expected to pay for the shortcomings of the bad when the regulator is asleep on duty, costing clients millions.
Dennis Taylor
Lighthouse Wealth
Client should have final say
Following your article ‘FCA steps in on hundreds of adviser PI cases’ (Jun 17).
I turned 55 in February 2020 and was eligible to take my company pension as a cash transfer value or lump sum and monthly pension.
I have known for several years I wanted to take the CTV but I was unable to get a consultant in Northern Ireland to deal with this.
They kept telling me on the telephone that it would be difficult for me to take the CTV and I would be better to take the DB pension.
I did not make appointments to see the consultants as I found them off-putting.
After discussion with a financial consultant in England, he disclosed that the professional indemnity insurance was costing £90,000 a year and therefore a lot of consultants were no longer dealing with DB as the PII was too high.
I managed to arrange another telephone consultation with a financial consultant in England. He took me through the relevant documents and I completed the relevant forms including personal circumstances.
I advised him I was extremely low-risk averse, whereby he decided that he was not recommending I take the CTV.
I advised him that it was my decision due to my circumstances and I asked if he could arrange for the CTV to be transferred into a low-risk area, for example, a cash fund.
He continued to say he was not recommending it and they didn’t do cash funds.
I had no other option but to take the tax free lump sum and pension (which is small).
I now have to find a job even though I am in ill health and I will have to sell my home as part of the CTV was to pay the mortgage off.
The financial consultant recommended that I could go for a equity release scheme, which I advised him I had looked at.
This would be like going from the frying pan into the fire – clearing the mortgage but still being in debt to another company.
I believe that the reason a lot of financial consultants are not dealing with DB is that they are running scared of the FCA with regards to advice and the cost of PII, which the insurance companies have hiked due to potential claims on DB.
I do believe that if someone knows what they want, then it should be up to them what they do with their money and not for a financial consultant to determine the direction of your life.
Name and address supplied
Paid in enough already
Following your article ‘Date set for appeal hearing on women’s pensions’ (March 3). My wife is one of these women and it is utterly unfair.
We are losing out on more than £50,000 and my wife, who was looking forward to a well-deserved retirement, has had to get a part-time job.
We agree that retirement ages need to be the same but how they have done it has left many in poverty and in need of help or having to find work when they were looking forward to retirement.
My wife has paid enough into the system.
Name and address supplied
