View more on these topics

Pru adviser under fire over transfer value confusion

Money-Coins-Pound-Currency-Close-up-700x450.jpgPrudential must compensate a customer whose transfer value was significantly reduced after a meeting with an in-house adviser.

According to a Financial Ombudsman Service decision, the customer, called Mr L, was told on 2 March 2017 that the transfer value for his pension policy was £141,981.

He met with a Prudential adviser, who recommended he transfer into a different Prudential pension plan that would give him flexible access to his income. However, when he received details of the new plan, he saw that the transfer value to set it up was £128,714.

According to the FOS decision, the adviser’s report recommending the transfer said the value can vary, particularly between January and March because Prudential reviews its rates around that time.

The report also said the transfer value quoted in March could be higher or lower than expected and illustrations noted the quoted pension value could change.

The FOS decision says the customer and the adviser both received a letter on 8 March 2017 that gave a transfer value of around £129,000. Prudential told the FOS that it took into account the expected reduction in rates that would take effect from 1 April that year.

Ombudsman Doug Mansell says that the lower figure was a more accurate reflection of the value of Mr L’s policy.

The decision says: “It’s clear the adviser was aware of the lower figure, as he included it in his report. But he only did so for the purpose of showing Mr L the guaranteed basic annuity he would lose if transferring away from his policy.”

Mansell adds: “On the whole, I think the adviser should have based his advice, and any illustrations used to show Mr L the potential benefits he would receive, on a value of £128,791. Prudential says it’s not its practice to keep updating quotes, but I’m not convinced by this argument. I think it’s important for a customer to be given as accurate information as possible so as to make an informed choice.

“It doesn’t appear that Mr L was in any rush to take his benefits. So I think there was time to ensure he was given an accurate picture. I’m also mindful that the cancellation notice still showed the now completely out of date figure of £141,981. As noted above, Mr L only became aware of the actual transfer value when receiving details of the policy that had been set up.”

A FOS investigator initially rejected the complaint but Mansell upheld it.

He says: “I accept that the transfer value used by Prudential was correct at the time the new plan started, and reflected the reduced bonuses and how these had affected Mr L’s policy. So to that extent he hasn’t suffered an actual financial loss.

“But I think the misleading and unclear information given to Mr L caused him some trouble and upset, which could have been avoided had Prudential taken more care. And I think he should be paid a sum of £400 in recognition of this. I’ve informed Prudential of my view, and acknowledge that it doesn’t agree.”

A Prudential spokesman says: “Prudential accepts the ombudsman’s decision. We do make it clear to customers that the transfer values given are not guaranteed and can change. We understand how these changes may disappoint customers and have introduced a 30-day guarantee for pension transfer quotes.”

Recommended

Prudential advice arm architect joins annuity provider

Fixed-term annuity provider Primetime Retirement has hired Russell Warwick, who helped create Prudential’s financial planning business. Warwick, who has worked in the pensions industry for more than 30 years, has been appointed managing director of sales and marketing at the company. Primetime Retirement is a subsidiary of Key Retirement. Warwick’s most recent position at Prudential […]

Prudential told to reverse fund switch after complaint

The Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Prudential, which changed a client’s fund without consent. In the case, Mrs F complains Prudential incorrectly switched her with-profits holdings into a cash fund when she reached her normal retirement date at 60. Mrs F’s normal retirement date was 9 November 2015 and throughout the life of […]

David-Geale-700.jpg
7

FCA policy chief: We can’t force people to save

The FCA’s policy director has said that the regulator will not “force individuals to save their own money” as it lines up a new joint pensions strategy with The Pensions Regulator. Speaking at a seminar outlining the FCA’s approach to the new strategy, for which it is currently seeking industry feedback, David Geale said that […]

How QE is distorting the gilt market

By Mike Riddell The moves in gilts in August were truly exceptional. Volatility in the gilt market (based off 10-year gilt futures) has soared to close to the highest levels seen this millennium, on a par with the eurozone debt crisis of 2011/12 and behind only the global financial crisis of 2008/09. The first distortion […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Given all that’s gone before with the likes of Keydata and Arch Cru etc, I’m astonished that the With Profits market hasn’t been examined.

    Maybe the Life Co’s just have too much clout as with the banks. In this case what was revealing is how FOS adjudicated, a recognition that no actual loss had occurred but ordered compensation anyway. It’s a queer old world!

    • Whilst it says te FOS confirmed “he hasn’t suffered an actual financial loss.”, correctly so in my opinion, the compensation has been only £400, not the difference….. however this is higher than the normal £250 the FOS seem to impose for no loss bad service/upset.
      This ahs axctually cost Pru about £1k when you include the FOS fee. Perhaps Pruy shoudl ahev offered something i.e. £250 for upset and it might not have wasted FOS time.

  2. Robert Milligan 24th April 2018 at 3:45 pm

    The important point is being missed here, Why is a In House Tied Agent recommending the transfer In-House in the first place, when the client is not looking to take his benefits at the same time. We need to see if the Adviser, is being “Managed” into getting the Prudential “OFF the hook” of the Guarantied Annuity rates. Please explain, was this transfer “Signed Off” by his line manager

  3. What sort of policy was he transferring out of?

  4. What sort of policy was he transferring out of? Smacks of Equitable Life before it fell over.

  5. Tied agents. Always a risk.
    What a shambles.

  6. There is something going on here that should be invested. If you receive the cancellation rights, it is fair to expect that that is the amount that is being transferred. How can the FOS rule otherwise. Secondly, on what basis does the FOS think the lower TV represented a more accurate reflection of the policy value. It looks, smells and feels like there as been collusion here between the Pru and the FOS. It is an appalling judgment for the client.

Leave a comment