View more on these topics

Should the tax-free lump sum be separated from pension decisions?

The FCA wants the government to explore ‘decoupling’ the 25 per cent tax-free lump sum from decisions about the remaining pension pot.

When trying to solve any problem it is good to consider all your options. Perhaps this is where the FCA is coming from in the final report of its Retirement Outcomes Review.

The regulator is concerned that, post-pension freedoms, some consumers are only moving into drawdown to access their 25 per cent tax-free cash – known formally as the pension commencement lump sum – and are not engaging with the rest of their pot. Under current rules, drawdown is the only way that people who do not want an income from their retirement pot can access the PCLS and some may have to transfer to a different product, with many not shopping around.

Paul Lewis: Waking up to poor retirement outcomes

The FCA wants the government to consider enabling consumers to access their tax-free cash without having to choose drawdown or an annuity. The regulator concedes there would be detailed policy and practical issues which the government would need to consider but thinks decoupling is worthwhile exploring. Does the industry agree?


Under the current rules, many people do not need to transfer out of their existing pension to access the PCLS. Royal London pension specialist Helen Morrissey says: “The facility to decouple the 25 per cent tax free lump sum from making a decision about what to do with the rest of the fund is already a feature in most modern personal pensions and self-invested personal pensions that offer integrated drawdown. It is more of an issue for those with legacy products or those in occupational pension schemes which require benefits to be taken in one go.”

However, she says that allowing decoupling in these products would require them to be significantly restructured and would require major changes to tax legislation.

Adviser view: Jade Connolly, strategy & acquisitions manager, Ascot Lloyd 

If the government made it mandatory for all pension providers to offer pension freedoms, we wouldn’t need to have any further rule changes to allow individuals to take their tax-free cash and not go into drawdown. It is providers out there not offering flexibility at retirement, coupled with a poor level of understanding by the consumer, that is leading to people ending up in drawdown for the wrong reasons.

Without advice and with the freedom of taking the largest lump sum many consumers will ever have available to them, wrong choices are likely to be made. Rather than changing the rules again, the government should work with pension providers to provide better guidance and support around taking benefits and encourage more providers to offer greater flexibility.

Aegon pension director Steven Cameron points out that, under HMRC rules, taking the PCLS is linked to crystalisation, which has tax implications including assessment against the lifetime allowance.

He says within the current rules, pension policies can be segmented, enabling people to take their tax-free cash from some segments and leave the others untouched so they can still contribute to those uncrystallised segments. However, this is complex and not all providers can do it, especially those with legacy products.

Standard Life head of financial planning propositions Alastair Black believes decoupling could pose significant challenges around implementation and costs for consumers.

“While it’s likely to be fairly straightforward for a drawdown contract, that’s unlikely to be the case for other pension contracts where you could see increased costs passed on to the consumer, even if nobody within the scheme actually wants to make use of this flexibility,” he says.


While the FCA believes that providing access to the PCLS with the ability to delay pension decisions could be beneficial, some commentators fear it could be counter-productive.

Primetime Retirement managing director Russell Warwick says: “Allowing people to access tax-free cash in isolation is possible but there are concerns that suggests it will sidestep need for customers to make a conscious decision where to invest for the future  It’s a bit of an amber light flashing, and not making any decision at all is a big risk.”

Editor’s note: FCA is right to target pension cash defaults

Montfort head of financial planning Eugen Neagu completely disagrees with the regulator on decoupling.

“The PCLS is a retirement benefit and in many cases, it is used for funding retirement expenditure. By decoupling the link, it will simply increase the behavioural bias for some individuals to spend the PCLS for other needs than retirement. I think this will actually work against receiving a better retirement outcome and the primary intention of this review by the FCA.”

London & Capital head of UK wealth Simon Tuck thinks too many individuals wrongly view the tax-free lump sum as nothing more than a windfall and treat it as such – moving their entire retirement pot into drawdown and leaving it to languish in cash after they have taken what they can.

Adviser view: Fiona Tait, technical director, Intelligent Pensions

We come across a lot of clients looking to access tax free cash who are not looking to draw an income at this point. They are well below 65, not looking to retire but want to repay debt. Considering the demographics, its sensible to look at decoupling. However, it would be very difficult to implement. Quite apart from administration for schemes that don’t currently offer those options, it requires legislation.

The PCLS is a very attractive part of a pension, but I’m concerned that if the government started looking at it in detail it might say it is able to remove it to save money on pensions.

Advice and default pathways

For some commentators, the way to address the FCA’s concerns about people going into drawdown for the wrong reasons is to promote the need for advice.

Portafina managing director Jamie Smith-Thompson says: “What we tend to find is those who have accessed their pensions won’t withdraw anything because they fear doing so, or take the whole lot and struggle to live. Hence, it’s crucial to get advice.

Target practice: FCA takes aim at freedoms failures

“What hasn’t been picked up on is if you have a defined benefit scheme and it’s worth over £30,000, you have to get advice because you are giving up valuable guarantees. Why doesn’t that apply for all schemes?”

Sanlam UK head of employee benefits Elliott Silk points out that many advisers are not interested in clients with smaller pots, so being able to take the PCLS and defer going into drawdown while still contributing to their pension could result in a higher value pot, for which the client could then seek advice.

He thinks the government could be receptive to the idea of decoupling but implementing it could be tricky.

Some believe the non-advised drawdown problem is more likely to be tackled through the FCA’s proposal of default investment pathways than decoupling.

Mattioli Woods chief operating officer Mark Smith points out that from the FCA’s viewpoint, going into a default investment pathway is better than having money sitting in cash with no investment strategy. “Providers will have to know more about their customers so they can default people into the right pathway. It’s not advice but it’s going further down the ‘know your customer’ route – and that’s quite a challenge for providers.”



FCA moots enforcing basic rate for cash savings

The FCA has kick-started a discussion as to whether a “basic savings rate” should be introduced on cash products. In a paper this morning, the regulator notes that on easy access cash savings products, longstanding customers are receiving worse interest rates than those shopping around. Among a range of potential options to address this price […]


Aviva and tech provider take joint responsibility for platform errors

Aviva is telling platform users that third party technology provider FNZ is jointly responsible for fixing errors experienced because of its replatforming project in January. Aviva moved assets on its platform from Bravura technology to FNZ six months ago but the project has been beset with issues, including advisers and clients not receiving payments, trades […]


Auto-enrolment arrives but is it a done deal for small firms?

When business secretary Vince Cable told the Liberal Democrat party conference he had defeated the Tory “headbangers” who “find sacking people an aphrodisiac”, there was little doubt who he was thinking of – Adrian Beecroft. The Beecroft report, which was commissioned by the Government and published in October last year, contains a series of radical […]

FCA proposes new rules for P2P lenders

The Financial Conduct Authority has opened a consultation on new rules for loan-based crowdfunding platforms as a first step to fix “increasingly complex” business models. The regulator today issued an update on its review of the loan-based and investment-based crowdfunding market. The updates are the first since a sector review in December 2016 and ask for responses […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This is not a useful debate. If people want to do things themselves there are companies who offer execution only transfers into reasonably priced wrappers. Going into drawdown is potentially a non decision if people want just tax free cash. Just set income drawdown at zero pounds and take the cash only. If people want some tax free cash but not all of it then just crystallise four times the amount you want and leave the rest untouched. Then set drawdown at zero for the part in drawdown. If the pot is so small that drawdown is not available then THAT IS THE PROBLEM AND THIS PROBLEM MAKES DECOUPLING IRRELEVANT!! People who have not saved enough are better off spending the pot and going on benefits. What is needed is a society which is governed by people with a sense of social conscience rather than inherited wealth and privilege.

  2. Honestly, other than providing another buzz word. Can anyone explain to me any tangible benefit to any client of “de-coupling”?

    Taking into account that a nil income FAD arrangement from many providers has almost identical charges to their PP/SIPP?

    So yes there might be a marginal saving on charges, but that’s not my point, what actual benefit does anyone gain?

    Because I cannot think of any that’s not already available…

  3. Spending all your pension pot then expecting the government to keep you is selfish and criminal. And not fair on those still working who most will have no chance of building up a pension pot to misuse as you sujest

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm