View more on these topics

FCA releases guidance on calculating redress for unsuitable DB transfers

The FCA has published finalised guidance for those who get a complaint about advice to transfer all or part of a defined benefit pension into a personal pension.

The regulator started a consultation in March to update how redress is calculated for unsuitable pension transfers. The guidance and consultation follow a review by PwC of the existing method of working out redress

In the guidance document published today, the FCA affirms that the “basic objective of redress” is to put the customer into the position they would have been in had the unsuitable advice not been given.

The regulator says that, where possible, the redress calculation should reflect the features of the customer’s original DB scheme. It says this could include, for example, different tranches of pension increase rates and deferred revaluation rates.

The guidance says it should be considered how far to take into account any adjustments to the benefits the customer would have been eligible for under the DB pension scheme.

It says this could include, for example, reflecting a state pension offset or the scheme entering the Pension Protection Fund.

The guidance says if it is not possible to pay the redress into the customer’s personal pension by “augmentation” then it should be paid in a lump sum.

The guidance document says that should be adjusted according to the client’s tax position.

It adds: “Firms should be mindful of where the redress methodology already factors in tax, such as when considering pension commencement lump sums. A customer should not be left in a worse position at the point of being redressed as a result of the redress either being used to augment their personal pension or being paid as a lump sum.”

The guidance says: “In calculating the redress amount, respondents should also take into account the customer’s wider circumstances so that they are not disadvantaged by receiving the redress payment.”

The document explains that the guidance applies to any complaint received after 3 August 2016. It also applies to a complaint received before 3 August 2016 but not settled in full before that date.

The guidance includes information relating to retail price index inflation, consumer price index inflation, the consumer’s retirement age, the pre-retirement discount rate, pension increases in payment, personal pension charges, and the post-retirement discount rate.

The changes made to the methodology include revising the inflation rate assumption to reflect the Bank of England’s 40-year inflation forward curve gilt yields and removing the pre-retirement lifestyling rate from the calculation.

It says adviser charges as well as fund charges should be taken into account as well as pension charges up to a maximum of 0.75 per cent.

It also includes guidance on mortality and spousal age differences, saying that when the actual age of the spouse is known it should be taken into account.

It also covers enhanced transfer values saying: “Where a cash enhancement was paid in addition to the transfer value, the cash enhancement should be rolled up from the date of payment to the calculation date using 50 per cent of the return on the FTSE 100 Total Return Index.”

It adds: “This should be net of personal pension charges for each year, as determined previously, and the figure added to the value of the consumer’s personal pension policy.”


Kim North grey

Kim North: DB transfers don’t deserve the doghouse

I have worked in retail financial services for the last 30 years, from the coal face as an IFA to the back office as head of compliance or technical services. Throughout this time, I have always believed the UK should follow the American Securities and Exchange Commission model of regulating products alongside the advice provided. […]


Selectapension set to restart DB transfers next year

Major defined benefit transfer provider Selectapension Bureau Services has said it should be able to resume business for new clients early next year after being caught up in the regulator’s review of the market. SBS suspended its DB pension transfer business in June after the FCA audited of its outsourced advice firm CFPML. SBS can […]

DB transfer values drop 4 per cent in September

Xafinity attributes the drop in DB transfer values to an increase in gilt yields Average transfer values dropped over September, falling by 4 per cent from £240,000 at the start of the month to £230,000 by the end of the month. According to the Xafinity Transfer Value Index, the difference between maximum and minimum readings […]

Generation Rent

By Denise Wond, marketing manager We’ve heard a great deal about Generation Rent in recent years but what does it actually mean for consumers and advisers and has the face of the typical renter changed? The picture is certainly more diverse than it used to be. Homeownership is at its lowest point in 30 years, […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The redress should be to purchase an annuity, as close as possible to the income that would have been paid from the scheme. The compensation would be the difference between the remaining sum, and the sum required to purchase said annuity If the client genuinely transferred for flexibility, they will have to make the same decision over again. If they truly preferred the flexibility and death benefits, for example, they could be likely to refuse the redress. It’s simple and PI insurers should insist on it.
    Clients should not be allowed to have cake and eat it. I.e receive compensation and retain all the additional benefits of flexi drawdown

  2. I see nothing in this article about any trend or upsurge in complaints about transfers of benefits out of DB schemes or of any expectation that one (or the other) is in prospect. It’s tempting to view its publication of these revised redress calculations as a harbinger of the FCA’s intention to impose initiate yet another hindsight Pensions Review. Advisers will be forced to revisit the basis of their recommendations, using new methodology dictated by the regulator, the result of which well be that they’ll be required not only to contact clients with an offer of redress but, if that offer is declined or ignored (on the basis that the client sees no fault in the original recommendation), to write to them at least once more positively urging them to accept it.

Leave a comment