Making a fool of themselves
Regarding your article ‘Ucis investment comes to haunt adviser’ (Nov 16).
Yet again I am reminded of the words uttered by Jim Gower who designed the original 1986 Financial Services Act.
He stated: “Consumers should not be made fools of, but should be allowed to make fools of themselves.”
At what point does a non-advised service deviate into the advice arena? What evidence is there of ‘advice’?
This type of decision, based purely on the ‘opinion’ of a non-qualified ombudsman, reduces the potential for advisers and non-advisers alike to trust that their actions will not involve them in a complaint.
Losing money is generally what happens to foolish investors who wish to pursue the outlandish in hope of a juicy return.
At what point will these people be deemed sufficiently knowledgeable to be allowed to be deemed fools?
Alan Lakey
Highclere Financial Services
Not the FCA’s choice
Regarding your article ‘FCA writes to DB advisers with new data request’ (see page 13).
The Financial Conduct Authority is concerned that companies are recommending large numbers of consumers to transfer out of their defined benefit schemes, despite its stance that transfers are likely to be unsuitable for most clients.
When are they going to get it into their heads that it is not their decision to make if a transfer from a DB scheme is suitable or unsuitable – it’s the client’s choice.
You can’t have pension freedoms and then not let clients do what they want with their own money.
Name and address supplied
Contradictions
Following your article ‘FCA writes to DB advisers with new data request’ (see page 13).
Don’t you think that ‘treating customers fairly’ is a joke when it comes to DB transfers?
The government brought out pensions freedom and told those with pensions that they should be in control of ‘their’ money, yet the FCA makes it more and more difficult for them to access it.
At the same time, the government believes £175 per week is enough for a retired person to retire on.
Should both these parties not be working together instead of giving out opposite information to the public?
Name and address supplied
Missing out on help
Regarding your article ‘Significant Covid scheme fraud risk “justified”’ (Nov 12).
I just read Chloe Cheung’s piece on the income support scheme and risk of fraud.
I am sure all the schemes are open to fraud. You could argue that people on significant furlough taking up second jobs is a form of ‘fraud’ when compared to those completely excluded from any form of income support through no fault of their own.
As someone newly self-employed in September 2019 I have received nothing in terms of financial support, not even Universal Credit as I have savings.
HM Revenue & Customs has a full PAYE history of more than 30 years’ employment. I have paid tax and national insurance in full. I have never claimed benefit and they even had a full self-assessment tax return submitted through my accountant for the six month self-employment up to year end March 2020.
So please tell me, what is the risk of fraud and why is it so difficult to understand the complete loss of earnings for someone whose work has been shut down?
Also, why is it so difficult, if nothing else, to offer a basic living wage for the months of missed income?
I will be expected to pay my tax return later this year from my savings and pension; tax which will have supported the millions who have been furloughed, and yet I haven’t had, nor will I, get a single penny.
Name and address supplied
What about DC savers?
Regarding your live coverage on Nikhil Rathi’s first appearance before the Treasury Committee. ‘FCA boss on FSCS costs, PI premiums and crisis response’ (Nov 4).
Thank you for your coverage of last week’s Treasury Committee virtual session attended by FCA chairman Charles Randell and chief executive Mr Rathi.
The evidence once again highlighted the chasm in consumer protection that exists between members of DB and defined contribution pensions when seeking to transfer or access their money.
Mr Randell said that the issue of people making poor pension choices was “probably the issue I worry about most of all” and said the safeguards should be “as strong as they humanly can be”.
While we applaud their efforts in the DB world, that activity is not mirrored for DC savers.
We are still awaiting the FCA response to the duties placed on it by the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 to boost guidance usage.
Mr Rathi raised further questions by telling the committee there have been no targets set for increasing usage of Pension Wise.
He said guidance would be a matter of balancing “capacity versus the demand”.
The entitlement to free, impartial and independent guidance was created as a key pillar of the pension freedom and choice policy in 2015.
It should be for everybody, not subject to rationing.
There appears to be a view among government and regulators that DB members must be shielded, but for DC pension savers, well it’s up to them to ask for help.
The retirement savings of a DB member are no more or less valuable than those of a DC member, and policy and regulation needs to reflect this.
Stephen Lowe
Just Group