Alan Hughes: Triage service will relieve DB transfer pressure

Putting the right people off transferring at the outset will be hugely valuable to the industry but there are issues to address

A combination of pension freedoms and the economic circumstances giving rise to historically high transfer values has created a perfect storm in terms of demand for defined benefit transfer advice.

Sadly, it has also led to the inevitable scandals that accompany such a situation. With such high sums involved, a small minority of advisers have been taking advantage, looking to make a fast buck with little regard for the long-term misery that may result.

But leaving that aside – and not dwelling on the fact this huge increase in demand and the problems that come with it could largely have been predicted and pre-emptive changes to advice rules and guidance put in place – it is a positive to see the FCA is looking once again at how to improve the quality of advice available.

Its recent consultation paper, CP18/7: Improving the quality of pension transfer advice, contains many sensible recommendations. I was particularly interested in the section on triage services.

Given the FCA’s assumption that most consumers will be better off not transferring, there must be value in focusing on providing a high-quality triage service which will stop a significant number of consumers from considering the move.

Nic Cicutti: Advisers over-fearful of FOS decision-making on DB transfers

Even if firms do not agree with the FCA’s starting assumption, it is not going away. And while it may sound a little “nanny state”, in the current regulatory climate, putting the right people off transferring to start with and leaving the market to serve those who may have genuine reasons to consider a transfer is something that warrants serious consideration.


A good and widely available triage service could perform a very valuable function. But there are two key issues: where is the advice boundary and are firms supposed to charge for such a service or provide it at their own cost?

The FCA has sought to address the first issue with some guidance that is useful as far as it goes. Without wanting to be too mischievous, I do wonder whether it would regard a clear statement at the outset of a triage service that “Most consumers will be best advised to keep them [safeguarded benefits]” as crossing the advice boundary.

Ok, probably not, but it is not far off. It seems from the guidance that refusing to provide advice following the triage service will be the best, and most compliant, method of indicating someone should probably not transfer.

The bigger issue is how a firm could ever make this sort of triage service pay. Consumers still do not seem to appreciate the value of advice, even for such life-changing decisions, so are unlikely to want to pay for it.

PI insurers express caution over ‘high-risk’ DB transfers as advisers struggle for cover

That said, the FCA clearly expects these triage services to be case specific and so a degree of work and risk is involved in providing them, even if no actual advice is given. This issue is not addressed at all and so the dilemma will persist.

Prescriptive rules

The triage service may be one area well suited to more prescriptive rules by the regulator. It is a sad thing to say, but a widely available triage service could take a swathe of consumers out of the market for advice and reduce the opportunity for unsuitable advice to be given.

Usually, more prescriptive rules are not popular, but this could be a compelling case for them. It also links in to the real issue: lack of consumer understanding and education.

Some of the comments around “free money” made to the FCA from those who have accessed their pensions under the freedoms show the real lack of understanding by the average person on these matters.

Can artificial intelligence solve the DB transfer problem?

With this in mind, there must also be a place for a long-term programme of financial education. A prescriptive triage service would only address the short-term symptom, not the cause, so better understanding is a priority to reduce the consumer population’s exposure to bad advice.

Unfortunately, however, political short-termism does not lend itself to such long-term solutions.

Alan Hughes is partner at Foot Anstey LLP 



The march to independence: Will more big players ditch the restricted brand?

As a number of sizeable restricted businesses ditch the label in favour of independence, advisers are questioning whether more firms will make the move back to whole of market. While many of the largest firms in the market still offer restricted advice, the majority of smaller firms continue to opt for independent status post-RDR. The […]


FOS penalises adviser over Harlequin Sipp property investment

The Financial Ombudsman Service has told Kingswood Financial Advisors to compensate a client over a Sipp investment in an unregulated Harlequin property fund. The case concerns Mr B’s complaints about the advice he received regarding two unregulated investments: one into a Harlequin property fund and the other into Green Oil. The ombudsman’s ruling relates to […]


Prudential eyes Asia tech spend after UK spin-off

Prudential is planning to double earnings in Asia by upping investment in technology. In an interview with Bloomberg, chief executive of the UK insurer’s Asia arm Nic Nicandrou says Prudential is looking to invest more than $400m (£281m) in areas like automation and online line sales, 20 per cent more than initially budgeted. Nicandrou adds […]

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at

Pension freedom: wish you were here?

Out there lies a warm ocean of desert islands, sun, sand and palm trees, where individuals can choose how and when to tax-efficiently access their pension fund and realise the retirement dreams they have worked so hard for.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Robert Milligan 20th April 2018 at 1:52 pm

    Alan, please explain to me what is Guaranteed from a DB scheme, please remind those that possibly do not, what happens to my benefits, having taken retirement at Fifty, with a lump sum, I am now 64, and the Scheme has just fallen onto the PPF. O Yes a fifty % reduction in my income for the remaining life!!!

  2. This an interesting article by Alan Hughes and the focus on triage is an interesting one as the term is used in the FCA’s document. The term and process originated for prioritising the treatment of men wounded on the battlefield so perhaps it’s not an inappropriate term to be applied to DB Pensions Transfers.

    In reality, probably all advisers and financial planning firms exercise some sort of triage service even if it is to determine clients they don’t wish to service whether it is because of the small size of investment, suspected money laundering issues or simply compatibility.

    However, a properly designed triage process that acts as a clear guide and determinant for managing DB Pensions Transfer enquiries will go a long way to reducing the instances of inappropriate advice.

    Developing such a triage process is actively being explored by us with a view to providing it as an extension to the Harbour suitability system used by financial planning and advice firms.

    Watch this space….

  3. Without prescriptive rules I cant see how this will deliver a lower cost filter.
    The amount of work will depend on the quality of information available and that is going to be problematic when the variety of information from various administrators is considered.

  4. What would an IFA charge for a Triage service ?
    The same as if a transfer was to proceed

Leave a comment