The Welfare State, 1942-2013, After decades of public illness, Beveridge’s most famous offspring has died.

From The Guardian Jan 8 2013 by Aditya Chakrabortty

For much of its short but celebrated life, the Welfare State was cherished by Britons. Instant public affection greeted its birth and even as it passed away peacefully yesterday morning,
government ministers swore they would do all they could to keep it alive.

The Welfare State’s huge appeal lay in its combination of simplicity and assurance. A safety net to catch those fallen on hard times, come rain or shine, boom or bust, it would be there for all those who had paid in. Such universality allowed people to project on to it whatever they wished. Welfare State’s father, the Liberal William Beveridge, described his offspring as “an attack on Want”, one of the
five evil giants that had to be slain in postwar Britain. But for future Labour prime minister
Clement Attlee, “Social security to us can only mean socialism”.

Yet there were critics. Indeed, it is thought that as late as yesterday, an unnamed twentysomething PPE graduate at Policy Exchange was revising a document entitled “What’s Wrong with Welfare?” In the end, however, it was not a rightwing think tank that
killed Welfare. The proximate cause of death was a change in child benefit from being available to all to a means-tested entitlement. That marked the end of one of the last remaining universal benefits, in turn causing a fatal injury to Welfare.

It is a testimony to Welfare’s powerful charm that few immediately accepted its passing. Hours after its official death, bloggers continued to talk as if it were still alive, albeit under grave threat from the perfidious Tories. But analysts later confirmed that the change to child benefit did indeed mark the death of the Welfare State as originally envisaged by Beveridge: a “contributory” system, where those who paid in during their working lives could count on financial help from the government when in need.

It expired peacefully on Monday, 7 January,just weeks after marking its 70th birthday. The system had suffered many attacks over the years, from politicians talking of a “welfare trap”, government means-testing, and frothy-mouthed journalists reporting isolated cases of benefit fraud. For many would-be claimants, Welfare had become a ragged system where, however deserving or needy, they weren’t poor enough to qualify for benefits, or the cash involved was too small to bother claiming.
Though David Cameron spoke of a “something for nothing” culture, the opposite was closer to the truth: Welfare had become a “nothing for something” system where taxpayers chipped in but got very little back.

This was very different from the scenes that greeted Welfare’s birth in 1942. Then, the BBC broadcast in 22 different languages the details of Beveridge’s social insurance scheme and the Manchester Guardian repeatedly acclaimed it as a “great plan” and a “big and fine thing”.
The public was enthusiastic, buying more than 635,000 copies of what was formally titled the “Report of the Inter -Departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services”.

Yet the golden period of Welfare really came in the 60s and 70s as, thanks to the work of Barbara Castle, Jeff Rooker, Audrey Wise and others, pensions and allowances were made more generous and tied to typical earnings. “If you were poor, you were far less behind than at any other time in contemporary British history,” according to Richard Exell, a senior policy officer at the TUC and a campaigner on welfare issues for more than 30 years. “It produced a Britain that was one of the most equal societies in western Europe.” Just before Margaret Thatcher came to power,a single person out of work would get unemployment benefit worth almost 21% of average earnings; last year, jobseeker’s allowance was nearly half that, amounting to just over 11%. Welfare’s big decline came in the 1980s, as the Conservatives moved more benefits from available to all to on offer only to the poor. This was justified as making public spending more efficient.

But, according to a famous and much quoted study by Walter Korpi and Joakim Palme, such means testing is far less effective and more expensive than universal benefits. In a study of 18 rich countries, the academics found that targetting benefits at the poorest usually generated resentment among those just above and led to smaller entitlements. This “paradox of redistribution” was certainly
observable in Britain, where Welfare retained its status as one of the 20th century’s most exalted creations, even while those claiming
benefits were treated with ever greater contempt. “If you look at unemployment and sickness benefit as a proportion of average earnings, then Britain has one of the meanest welfare systems in Europe,” says Palme. “Worse than Greece, Bulgaria or Romania.” Some of that same meanness can be seen in the way Welfare was discussed as it moved into
its sixth and seventh decades. It was no longer about social security but benefits. Those who received them were no longer unfortunate but ” slackers”, as Iain Duncan Smith referred to
them. A recent study by Declan Gaffney, Ben Baumberg and Kate Bell of 6,600 national newspaper articles on Welfare published between 1995 and 2011 found 29% referred to benefit fraud. The government’s own estimate of fraud is that it is less than 1%across all benefit cases.

The death of Welfare does not mean an end to all benefit spending. Instead, it is outlived by its predecessor, Poor Relief, in which only the very poorest will receive government cash.

Analysts are unsure about the repercussions. “I’m not aware of any country that’s ever had a combination of Victorian-style poor laws and parliamentary democracy,”.says Gaffney.
Instead of a book of condolences, there will be a special edition of the Guardian’s letters page.
In separate tributes, BBC4 will air some respectful but little-watched documentaries; there will also be a truly unbearable edition of The Moral Maze.

http//:www.money-web.com

http//:www.money-web.com

Advertisements

Lords claim RDR reforms will widen ‘advice gap’

Peers in the House of Lords have blamed forthcoming financial reforms for worsening an ‘advice gap’ that could leave the poorest stranded at retirement.

Originally posted on Citywire.co.uk by William Robins on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:08

Peers said in a debate last night that the retail distribution review (RDR) reforms, combined with high pension charges, would hurt savers with small pension pots.

The RDR reforms will abolish the payment of commission to financial advisers and require them to hold higher qualifications from the end of this year.

Cross-bench peer Sally Greengross, who led the debate, said the RDR would lead to those on a modest income being priced out of the advice market.

‘There is a big chance that [the poorest] are exactly the set of people who will receive no advice at all, as costs are made transparent and IFAs follow more high net worth clients,’ she said.

‘We must narrow the advice gap. Much more should be done to ensure consumer information is delivered but that must be from a consumer, rather than a compliance, perspective.’

She added that a fragmented government savings policy, split between the work of the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the FSA, was contributing towards the problem.

Tory peer John Patten added that it was possible for cost-effective investment and advice options to be made available to savers with small pots. ‘We could use the buying power that a million people would have to negotiate for good advice or a better deal when they invest,’ he said.

‘There may be market driven options. They have £2 billion to invest – the market could come up with a process to get a better deal for pensioners.’ Government whip Tina Stowell said the Department for Work and Pensions would consider his idea.

Patten also harshly criticised charges taken from pension pots. ‘These charges have just abolished any chance of getting these rates. People talk about the magic of compound interest but [there is a] tyranny of high charges.’

Labour peer Patricia Hollis added that self-interest among pension providers was also hurting the drive to create a savings culture.

‘I argued for small pots to be transferred to Nest [the National Employment Savings Trust] but this was batted away by the self-interested howls of the industry who would lose money under management,’ she said.  ‘In much the same way they have batted away any early access to a slice of pension savings that would also help transform savings culture.’

‘Many will be left with a portfolio of small pots which will be inaccessible to them at retirement. Those pots have gone AWOL, stolen by the structure of the pension industry we have helped to create.’

Labour peer Lord Lipsey added that the Financial Services Authority had failed to engage politicians in its efforts to reform financial services with the RDR.

‘I did not get a briefing from the FSA – this is extremely neglectful. It’s the FSA’s RDR that’s created the advice gap. Surely those here have a right to hear from the FSA. I don’t know whether this is FSA incompetence or FSA contempt of Parliament.’

Lipsey, who is the president of the Society of Later Life Advisers, said it would be wrong to assume advisers would not write unprofitable business at retirement as ‘winning the trust’ of a pensioner could mean getting other work, such as on inheritance tax issues, later on.

Make a free 30 minute meeting with RDR qualified Independent Financial advisor now

Arrange a free 30 minute meeting with RDR compliant  Independent Financial advisor now.

The truth about the pension fund charges ‘scandal’

Labour leader Ed Milliband has stirred up the debate over investment charges calling them a ‘rip off’. Are they?

The Lolly : www.citywire.co.uk/

The truth about the pension fund charges ‘scandal’.

 

free_professional_pension_review_image4_contact_us

Never Trust an IFA?

‘Never trust an IFA, they are commission-grabbing ******s.’

By Mike Deverell – Posted from  www.citywire.co.uk

This is a typical comment on Citywire’s forums – often underneath one of my articles – and seems fairly representative of the average Citywire reader’s opinion of Frankly, many of those in the industry have only themselves to blame for this shoddy reputation. Although I have come across many fantastically professional, diligent and honest individuals during my career, I have also met my fair share of salesmen only interested in earning the maximum commission.

Despite this, I believe financial advice is severely undervalued in this country. The value it can add, both in pound-note terms and in terms of comfort and confidence, is seriously underestimated.

I normally write about investment matters, but I thought it was time I set the record straight about our industry, the sharp practices to look out for, the changes that are afoot, and the value that good-quality financial advice can add.

It’s all about incentives

As anyone who’s ever read Freakonomics can tell you, people respond to incentives whether consciously or unconsciously.

Commission is an incentive that misaligns the interests of the client with that of the adviser (salesman). A commission-based adviser’s objective is to sell a financial product since he or she will not be paid otherwise. This product may well meet the client’s objectives, but it may not. The commission incentive ensures that client and adviser have a different objective.

If paying by fee, the adviser gets paid whether or not a product is sold. A fee-based adviser is much more likely to recommend a client keeps their money in cash, or uses it to pay off a mortgage, for example.

Arrange_a_meeting_with_a_financial_advisor_image

Mis-selling scandals

Commission has been a major component of almost every mis-selling scandal, whether it involves IFAs or not. For example, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) recently expressed concerns about how poorly constructed incentive schemes caused mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) at banks.

Luckily, commission is about to be banned under the retail distribution review (RDR). This comes into play from the beginning of 2013, and will go a long way to cleaning up our industry.

However, an inappropriate fee structure can also wrongly incentivise advisers or discretionary managers. For example, a typical trick by many wealth managers is to charge a relatively small annual management charge, but also charge, say, £25 for each trade.

This gives firms an incentive to trade, which might not necessarily be in the clients’ best interests. At Equilibrium we worked out that a single switch (which remember is actually two transactions – a sale and a purchase) for all our clients could earn us £200,000 if we charged £25 per trade! That is an incentive we do not want to have.

Even after RDR you will need to think carefully about whether the fee structure being proposed offers an inappropriate incentive.

The value of advice

Although it is important to be aware of the potential for sharp (or just poor) practices, professional financial advice can be invaluable.

Financial advice covers a wide range of areas, but quality advice can, among many things:

  • Reduce the amount of tax you pay, whether that be on income or gains from investments.
  • Help protect your family against the unknown with appropriate insurance.
  • Help you plan for the future, knowing how much you need to save for retirement and work out when you can afford to retire.
  • Reduce inheritance tax on your estate.
  • Build appropriate investment portfolios to match your risk tolerance and objectives.

Most Citywire readers have as much chance of selecting decent investment funds as the average IFA. Unfortunately, selecting a good fund manager is a fairly minuscule piece of the investment jigsaw, with asset allocation accounting for more than 90% of the variance of investment returns. Quality investment advisers therefore focus on asset selection rather than fund selection.

Do advisers avoid investment trusts?

One myth that I consistently see repeated on Citywire forums is that advisers only recommend investing in unit trusts or open-ended investment companies (Oeics) instead of investment trusts. They do so – so the story goes – because they get paid trail commission.

Quality advisers who use wrap platforms rebate trail commission back to their clients. They also get a discount on annual management charges, which makes unit trusts similar in cost to investment trusts, often cheaper. We find that the discounts we can obtain on funds often pay for a large part of our fees.

After RDR, trail commission will be banned, and to call themselves independent, advisers will have to consider investment trusts, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and a much broader spectrum of products as well as unit trusts.

Some may decide they haven’t the time or resources to review all the relevant types of investment. These advisers will no longer be allowed to call themselves ‘independent’, but rather they will offer ‘restricted’ advice.

Qualifications

The RDR also means advisers must now achieve a much higher level of qualification before being allowed to give advice. The previous benchmark for financial advisers was the Certificate in Financial Planning. This was a level-three qualification. From next year, all advisers must be qualified to level four as a minimum. All advisers will also have to sign up to a code of ethics and be a member of a professional body.

To be sure of professionalism, look for chartered financial planners who have qualifications equivalent to degree level. Chartered financial planners must also have a certain amount of experience and carry out a set amount of learning each year to maintain their chartered status. The same can be said for certified financial planners, although their qualification is equivalent to the first year of an undergraduate degree course.

Frankly, most quality financial advisers can’t wait for these new rules to come into play since this will force the unscrupulous and the unprofessional to either clean up their acts or go out of business.

free_professional_pension_review_image4_contact_us

Do you know about the UK pension shake-up?

Do you know about the UK pension shake-up?
Auto-enrolment is one of the biggest pensions changes in decades, but most employees are still in the dark about how they will be affected

More than half of UK workers are in the dark about the huge changes to the pension system that will see them automatically enrolled into their employer’s pension scheme from October.

The Workplace Pensions Report 2012 by insurer Scottish Widows shows 52%, or 9.9 million, workers in the UK are unaware of auto-enrolment.

Under the government’s new plans, workers who do not already contribute to a workplace pension will be auto-enrolled into one – workers in larger companies will be auto-enrolled from October, with those in smaller companies will be auto-enrolled over the next five years.

However, it is not a compulsory scheme, and workers will have the opportunity to opt out. Employees will continue to be auto-enrolled every three years and must continue to opt out.

Lynn Graves, head of business development for corporate pensions at Scottish Widows, said it was ‘shocking’ that with just three weeks to go until auto-enrolment starts there was still a gap in awareness.

‘Auto-enrolment is designed for people who traditionally don’t have access to a workplace pensions scheme, such as smaller employers of those with lower incomes, and it is clear that information is still not reaching the audience it is intended to target,’ she said.
Wanting to save more

Although many employees are unaware of the changes that make it easier for them to save, many wish to do so.

Just 11% of workers said they would opt out of the scheme, with 32% of those who would not take part stating that they could not afford to save.

However, those who are willing to save want to save a lot more. The amount that workers want to save has doubled since last year, from £37.50 to £76.95, although a third of people still said this level of saving would not be enough to provide them with an acceptable standard of living in retirement.

Graves said: ‘It is clear from our research that people are failing to save enough for their future, especially in relation to retirement.

‘While it is a positive sign that people are willing to pay more into their workplace pension, substantial work must still be done to encourage people to save enough for retirement and this is a challenge for government, the pensions industry and employers.’

She added that Britain was ‘slowly waking up to the reality of how we are going to be able to fund our retirement?’, with people realising they will not be able to rely on the state to provide the majority of their income.

In fact, just 2% of employees surveyed felt the state pension would provide sufficient income.
Achieving pension targets

A total of 70% of employees surveyed said they wanted to retire at age 65, and 48% want to have an income in retirement of between £15,000 and £30,000.

Individuals intend to use a number of sources to fund this income, with company pensions the number-one source of income – 33% of people said their company pension would help ensure they had a comfortable retirement.

The state pension will play role in 40% of people’s retirement plans, and personal pensions will make up part of the retirement income for 32% of people.

Although the state pension was the most popular choice as a funding source for retirement income, individuals are realising they have to take more responsibility for their old age.

When asked whether individuals will have to take more personal responsibility for their financial security in retirement, 32% strongly agreed and 42% somewhat agreed.
How to increase savings

Employers can play an important role in their employees’ savings habits, with many of those surveyed keen to access different financial products through their employer.

A total of 39% said they would like to save into an employer pension, 17% said they would like their workplace to offer a cash ISA, 15% wanted to obtain mortgages through their employer, and 14% would like access to loans.

Jim Bligh, head of labour market and pensions policy at the Confederation of British Industry, said employers needed to review their offerings to employees.

‘All these changes in the pensions landscape offer an opportunity for employers to look at their wider reward package. Employers need to ensure that they are fine-tuning their reward package to the needs and demands of their employees, so they are able to recruit and retain the best talent available,’ he said.

‘With personal incomes under pressure, we are seeing a greater appetite for a mixture of long-term and short-term saving options being available to employees.’

Written by Michelle McGagh, Sep 10, 2012 at 00:01 posted on http://www.citywire.co.uk, follow the link below to read more;

What you need to know about auto-enrolment from Citywire.co.uk

Or discuss it privately at a time to suit you:

Arrange_a_meeting_with_a_financial_advisor_image

Arrange A Meeting With A Local FSA Regulated Independent Financial Advisor At A Time To Suit You

10 Top Tips From Leading UK Financial Advisors

1.Check your protection

Parents should review their protection policies and consider an income rather than lump sum-based product, according to Colin Last of Tamar IFA

‘As far as protection is concerned, make sure the level and type of protection you have in place is right at any given time,’ he said.

‘If in the past you have been recommended a lump sum policy, which pays out a lump sum on your death, and now you have children, you should review that [policy] and look at doing a family income benefit policy, which is more relevant, because it pays out income for the remainder of the term.’

2. Invest ethically

Helen Tandy, director of the Gaeia Partnership, wants more public awareness of ethical investments, allowing the public to put its principles into financial practice.

Tandy said she would like to see people consider investments that could protect the environment.

‘I don’t think a lot of people realise they can put their ethical views into their investments. If you aim to protect the environment and buy organic products, you can mirror those views with your finances. Do some research on those types of investments.’

3. Stop procrastinating

If Jason Witcombe of Evolve Financial Planning could teach his clients one thing, it would be: ‘Don’t do tomorrow what can be done today, especially when opting into a pension scheme.

‘We all put off tasks that we don’t want to deal with, or don’t know how to deal with, in all aspects of our lives,’ he said. ‘But it’s very easy to put it off for months and wake up a decade later wishing you had done something sooner.

‘I’ve spoken to people who have said they’ve never joined their company pension scheme because they didn’t get around to it when they first joined. But 10 years later they are in the same job and have missed out on years of a company pension.’

4. Buck the bond trend

Investors should pay more attention to equities rather than following the crowd buying bonds, said Jeremy Davis managing director of 35 Finance.

Davis said he had been telling income-seeking clients to decrease their exposure to bonds and increase allocation to equities.

‘Because of fear, people have been buying bonds. Sales of bond funds have been higher than equities for a long time. And yet the next move for interest rates will be up, which is no good for bonds, so the best source of income is equities.

‘The dividend yield on income-producing equities is higher than the yield on bonds. There is potential for capital growth.’

5. Review your financial needs

Keith Churchouse of Chapters Financial would like to see Joe Public review his finances to make sure they are still appropriate, as his circumstances and aims may have changed since he first made an investment or set up a pension.

‘Just like their lives, people’s financial plans do not stand still,’ he said. ‘A pension or investment may not meet the requirements first specified, so always review it in the light of their circumstances if these change.’

6. Not so fantastic plastic

Credit cards are the work of the devil and should be avoided, according to Lee Robertson of  Investment Quorum.

‘Never a borrower be, particularly on plastic,’ he said. ‘They create a false sense of security and the interest rates are frankly scandalous.’

Robertson said people could justify a credit card to get a credit rating, or for emergencies, but should pay it off as soon as they could and not use it on a regular basis.

7. Where’s your pension?

Martin Bamford, Managing Director of Informed Choice wants the general public to understand where their pension is invested.

Bamford said many people chose default investment options for their pension and did not select funds that matched their risk tolerance.

‘It’s important to select funds that match your attitude towards risk and your own individual retirement goals. So, rather than opt for a default option, choose things that suit you,’ he said.

‘We get feedback from clients who go for the default: they’re very disappointed with how it’s performed and feel they don’t have the confidence to put more money into their pension.’

8.Think before you invest

Paul Beasley Managing director of Richmond House Group, wants to teach consumers to take some time to consider their investment choices rather than just do what they are told by an adviser.

He said he also wanted to see people take a greater interest in their investments once these had been made.

‘Don’t rush into any decision, take time to consider it,’ he said.

‘If it’s an investment decision, try to follow it yourself for a short period of time, so you can get a feel for its movement in relation to the market and be a bit more considered before jumping in. It always surprises me how easily some clients just say: “Yes, that’s fine,” and invest.’

9. Avoid debt

Sometimes the simplest lessons are the hardest to learn.

Pete Matthew of Jacksons Wealth Management wants to drum in the importance of people not spending more than they earn.

Matthew said budgeting might be boring, but it was crucial if consumers wanted to avoid falling into debt.

‘It’s a factor for all my clients, either when they’re building wealth and need to spend less than they earn to have saveable income, or when they’re decumulating.’

10. Think long term

People should focus on their long-term goals rather than short-term events when investing, said Steve Buttercase, financial planner with Sense Financial Solutions

He said investors would be better served by concentrating on their ultimate goals and should not be swayed to change course because of unexpected events or brief trends.

‘Nothing will last forever, whether it is good or bad,’ he said. ‘A boom time will end, a recession will end. The hardest thing to do is not respond to the fund or sector of the moment. Make it totally goal-focused and don’t radically change just because of the flavour of the month.’

Arrange_a_meeting_with_a_financial_advisor_image

Arrange A Meeting With A Local FSA Regulated Independent Financial Advisor At A Time To Suit You

Pension Scams you should know about.

Spending time with loved ones

retirement shouldn’t mean money worries

‘It’s been an area that is ripe pickings for fraud,’ said Jane de Lozey, joint head of fraud at the SFO. ‘Pensions are complex and have a mystery to them. People don’t understand them and this leaves them open to abuse.’
GP Noble: ‘smash and grab’ fraud

De Lozey knows all about pension fraud as she worked on the GP Noble case – one of the most high-profile pension fraud cases in recent history. The case started four years ago, and has so far spawned three criminal trials and one civil trial, with another trial due for October. So far £30 million has been recovered from the £52 million GP Noble fraud.

Of the GP Noble fraud, de Lozey said: ‘It was eye-opening to see how easy it is to commit pensions fraud. GP Noble was a smash and grab fraud, the equivalent of ramming into an ATM machine – it showed how easily you can steal other people’s money.

‘The GP Noble fraud is straightforward compared to what we are seeing now. Fraud has been elevated now in terms of complexity.’
New taskforce

It is because of this increased complexity that the SFO is helping to set up a pensions fraud taskforce, working alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customers, the Economic Crime Council, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, the National Crime Agency, The Pensions Regulator and the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

‘The joint taskforce will specifically target pensions, because we have seen an increase in the number of fraud cases with a pensions angle, and the self-invested personal pension (Sipp) angle has increased a lot in the last year,’ de Lozey said.
Suspect investments

As Sipp savers have control over what they can invest their money in, the fraud often centres on investment. People are encouraged to invest their pension schemes in high-risk investments, many of which promise returns they cannot deliver.

The SFO has seen an increase in overseas property development fraud, with savers encouraged to invest in everything from hotels to golf courses and student accommodation.

Bio-fuel and sustainable energy investments are also being marketed at Sipp investors as a reliable investment for their pension pot.

‘Some of these investment are offering 16% returns – this should set the alarm bells ringing. Also, anything that says income is guaranteed,’ said de Lozey. ‘We see claims that money is guaranteed because it is held in escrow accounts. It is our experience that these claims do not stand up.

‘If something is too good to be true, then that is usually the case.’
Unregulated investments

Many of the investments being pushed to pension savers are unregulated collective investments (Ucis), which are not FSA regulated and are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme should something go wrong.

Ucis are often based in foreign countries away from the prying eyes of regulators, and de Lozey has straightforward advice: ‘Some jurisdictions are unstable. You have to ask yourself whether you would buy a holiday home there and if not, why would you invest in a rainforest development there? It could be a very costly mistake.’
Unlock at your peril

Pension unlocking, or ‘liberation’, is an area attracting fraudsters. They allow savers to access their pension fund early for a large fee, but fail to explain the tax penalty savers will be hit with in retirement.

‘People are unaware of the [tax] rules. Quite often people who are in financial hardship are targeted [by pension unlocking scams]. They think, “it’s my money so why can’t I have it?” and they are working with an adviser who they think is acting in their best interest, but then they are hit by a tax whammy,’ de Lozey said.

‘People are paying a huge upfront fee [to the pension unlocking company], and then when they get to retirement they take another hit.’

De Lozey has been targeted by pensions unlocking companies through unsolicited texts, and warns people to stay clear of companies that cold call.

She recalled one independent financial adviser who was cold called. He did not tell the company he worked in finance, and they told him if he did not unlock his pension now he would end up owing the pension company money in retirement – a situation that could never happen.

‘The scams we are seeing are highly organised, run by professional people with credibility who have worked in finance and have good contacts. Some of these people are very clever – they may be selling things that sail close to the wind and target unsophisticated investors,’ she said.
Later-life victim

One of the problems with pension fraud is that people are often unaware they are the victim of a scam until they come to retire years down the line, when the fraudsters are long gone.

‘We suspect there are many pension fraud schemes, and many people will be unaware they are victims of crime. They will not know they are victims until 15 years down the line when they try to drawdown their pension and realise their fund has been dissipated,’ de Lozey said.

She added that often victims of fraud feel guilt and embarrassment.
Trust your instincts

The people running pension scams are sophisticated and persuasive, de Lozey warned. Many have a background in financial services and know the jargon.

‘Because pensions are complicated, because there is lots of mystery and jargon, we hand over control and we hand over our money,’ she said. The best advice de Lozey has is to ‘trust your gut’, and if something seems too good to be true then it probably is.

‘Do not be fooled by the suits and flash cars. Do not think of this person as a professional, but as an ordinary person and ask yourself: do you trust them? If we listen to our gut then our instincts do not let us down.’

If you believe you have been targeted by a pension scam contact, Action Fraud.