Scottish Widows - a warning

[itcouldbeworse]

For those of you intending to use Scot Widows as a pension provider - I'd think again.

At the start of July I started the process of transferring out a DC pension from Scot Widows, in advance of me taking benefits.
The transfer has just gone through, so Its taken 3.5 months!

The customer service seems to be non exsistant. At one stage they told my new provider that they were not going to continue processing the transfer, despite all the paper work being completed but wouldn't tell them why. I tried to intervene but they are almost impossible to contact via their webchat, phone or email. I spent literally hours on the phone over the course of several days, either on hold or being passed from one department to another, none of whom could help me.

Eventually I sort of gave up, but then lo and behold the transfer was completed. So I assume someone, somewhere read the emails.

The provider I used said that it was common knowledge in the industry that SW have terrible customer service, but I had no idea!

[mc2fool]

The provider I used said that it was common knowledge in the industry that SW have terrible customer service...

That may well be true but it is also common practice with both pension and ISA transfers (esp. S&S ones) for each side to blame the other for any delays ...

[itcouldbeworse]

Well I can only go on my experience. Emails with the provider I was transferring to were answered promptly (within 24 hours during the week). They made it clear what I was supposed to provide and gave me regular updates on progress,

SW provided a discharge form promptly, which I should give them credit for. However none of my other emails received a response, although as the transfer eventually went through it suggests someone was reading them. As stated despite spending hours on the phone to SW I never actually spoke to anyone who could provide me with any information.

[DelianLeague]

Hello Itcouldbeworse,

I have transferred four of my pensions over the years, two of them fairly recently. Three and a half months to complete is about the average time taken.

One of my recent pensions that was administered by a well-known American company, took six and a half months to complete, with both sides blaming each other and all I wanted was for my transfer to complete quickly in a rising market.

It was appalling service. Yet, I also recently transferred a similar pension that was administered by another US company (on behalf of my pension provider) and it only took six weeks despite the fact that I filled out a line on one form incorrectly. They simply returned this form to me, and I made the necessary alteration, sent it back and then the transfer went though. Excellent service from both my pension scheme and the administrators.

So, in my experience, SW are fairly average. I expect there are much worse horror stories by members of this board than my own 6 1/2 months.

Regards, D.L.

[SebsCat]

My wife recently transferred her DC pension from SW to a SIPP.

23rd Aug - Transfer request was submitted via SIPP provider
22nd Sept - received a letter from SW dated the 17th advising the transfer request had been made.
27th Sept - SIPP provider received the cash
4th Oct - received letter from SW dated Sept 22nd saying that the transfer was complete.

Can't say the comms from SW was great - if this had been a fraudulent transfer request then it would have been extra painful to put right since the transfer was completed on the day the acknowledgement letter arrived!

Overall, the amount of time was OK given prior expectations. The cash transfer amount was based on the DC value on 23rd Aug plus an interest element for the "delay in making the payment". Given that the markets had fallen in the meantime this worked to my wife's advantage.

[itcouldbeworse]

Well, looks like I just got a bit unlucky on the communication side and the transfer time itself wasn't unusual.
I too got the letter acknowledging receipt of the transfer request on the same day the request went through.

[HillManMill]

I have a DC contribution with Scottish Widows. I have taken a series of UFLPS [uncrystallised lump sums] payments from the policy. The policy contains units bought from lump sums at different dates. It is in my interest that the units bought first [i.e. the oldest] are retained in the policy when units are disinvested for the UFPLS payments. This is because these oldest units attract a loyalty bonus payments to the policy whereas the other units do not. The loyalty bonus creates new units that are the same as their 'parent' units. I took my most recent UFPLS in February 2021 some of the units disinvested were the oldest units whilst younger units were retained in the policy - i.e. I was disadvantaged.

I have been in dispute with Scottish Widows about this, the dispute has now reached deadlock as the company continue to contend that I am not disadvantaged by the disinvestment process that it follows.

In outline I have found the complaints processed followed by the Scottish Widows to be extremely poor. It took months to 'persuade' them to admit any level of error and even now I have not been presented with any logic that supports its position that I have not suffered disadvantage consequent to its actions. In conclusion if you have reason to challenge Scottish Widows be prepared to be subject to delay, frustration and to be presented with at best incomplete information.

[mc2fool]

I have a DC contribution with Scottish Widows. I have taken a series of UFLPS [uncrystallised lump sums] payments from the policy. The policy contains units bought from lump sums at different dates. It is in my interest that the units bought first [i.e. the oldest] are retained in the policy when units are disinvested for the UFPLS payments. This is because these oldest units attract a loyalty bonus payments to the policy whereas the other units do not. The loyalty bonus creates new units that are the same as their 'parent' units. I took my most recent UFPLS in February 2021 some of the units disinvested were the oldest units whilst younger units were retained in the policy - i.e. I was disadvantaged.

I have been in dispute with Scottish Widows about this, the dispute has now reached deadlock as the company continue to contend that I am not disadvantaged by the disinvestment process that it follows.

In outline I have found the complaints processed followed by the Scottish Widows to be extremely poor. It took months to 'persuade' them to admit any level of error and even now I have not been presented with any logic that supports its position that I have not suffered disadvantage consequent to its actions. In conclusion if you have reason to challenge Scottish Widows be prepared to be subject to delay, frustration and to be presented with at best incomplete information.

Has your dispute been acknowledged as a formal complaint? You can tell 'cos if it has then somewhere in the communications from them they should have, by now, given you either a Financial Ombudsman Service leaflet or, as seems to be more common nowadays, an email with a link to the equivalent page on the FOS website. You should also, by now, have received a "full and final response" from them.

If so then you can lodge a complaint about the matter with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

If not then you have to make a formal complaint to Scottish Widows 'cos the FOS won't take up your case until you have and either SW have given you their full and final response, which you are unhappy with, or eight weeks have passed without you receiving such a response from them.

See here on how to put together a formal complaint: viewtopic.php?p=395927#p395927

You might want to take a look at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/pensions-annuities, and if you'd like to chat to the FOS about it their contact details are at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact-us

[HillManMill]

Thanks for your reply mc2fool.

Yes Scottish Widows have already signposted that I could go to the Financial Ombudsman (FOS).

Six months after initiating my complaint I went to The Pension Ombudsman (TPO). I went to the TPO because it seemed to me its remit was a better fit to the complaint than the FOS. (There is a memorandum of understanding between the two). After this I continued to try and negotiate with Scottish Widows (SW) but without complete success. Although SW was told that I had gone to TPO it continued to suggest that I contact FOS. When we reached Deadlock I went to FOS. Shortly after which TPO's early resolution team contacted me. To use the TPO I had to drop my FOS complaint. The TPO early resolution service intervention was unsuccessful. I then confirmed with the TPO that my complaint remained in the queue for formal arbitration. From correspondence with TPO it seems that the consequence of my agreeing to use its early resolution service was to increase the time that it takes to enter formal adjudication. This is because entry to that queue is when early resolution has failed.

Because of the time that has now elapsed from SW's formal reply I am not allowed to (re) raise the complaint with FOS.

To summarise time scales to date:
6 months from complaint to my first contact with TPO.
7 months from first contact with TPO to start of early resolution.
1 month for early resolution.
12 months from first contact with TPO to date.
Overall timescale from initial complaint with SW to date 20months.

My view is that it is better to try and resolve complaints informally. Given my experiences with SW described in this post I would recommend that when complaining to SW: escalate to both TPO and FOS as soon as is reasonable, do not agree to any informal Ombudsman process but stick to the formal adjudication route. When the first Ombudsman makes contact to advise that it is in position to start adjudication drop the complaint with the second (this has to be done as only one may look at a particular complaint). This approach minimises the overall timescales.

[mc2fool]

To summarise time scales to date:
6 months from complaint to my first contact with TPO.
7 months from first contact with TPO to start of early resolution.
1 month for early resolution.
12 months from first contact with TPO to date.
Overall timescale from initial complaint with SW to date 20months.

My view is that it is better to try and resolve complaints informally. Given my experiences with SW described in this post I would recommend that when complaining to SW: escalate to both TPO and FOS as soon as is reasonable, do not agree to any informal Ombudsman process but stick to the formal adjudication route. When the first Ombudsman makes contact to advise that it is in position to start adjudication drop the complaint with the second (this has to be done as only one may look at a particular complaint). This approach minimises the overall timescales.

Ah, interesting stuff there, esp. about the relationship between the TPO and FOS, and the one-or-other-but-not-both aspect.

I'm not sure what you mean about "any informal Ombudsman process" nor also quite what you mean by trying to resolve complaints informally but escalating to TPO and FOS as soon as is reasonable, 'cos that escalation is a formal process.

Certainly one should start, IMO, with a friendly non-officious tone to any complaint, but if that doesn't resolve to your satisfaction and it appears that further similar exchanges aren't going to change anything, then I've found that telling them you're now raising it to a formal complaint, and including some of the buzz phrases mentioned in my previous link, usually helps move things along to a better result.

But, yes, the goal of "going formal" is hopefully not to end up at the FOS or TPO ... especially as it sounds like both have similar loooong timescales for just getting round to looking at your complaint, let alone trying to resolve it....

[HillManMill]

To respond the the most recent points made by Mc2fool

I'm not sure what you mean about "any informal Ombudsman process" nor also quite what you mean by trying to resolve complaints informally but escalating to TPO and FOS as soon as is reasonable, 'cos that escalation is a formal process.

I was describing the early resolution process as informal. Please take a look at this:

https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/whats-involved

Certainly one should start, IMO, with a friendly non-officious tone to any complaint, but if that doesn't resolve to your satisfaction and it appears that further similar exchanges aren't going to change anything, then I've found that telling them you're now raising it to a formal complaint, and including some of the buzz phrases mentioned in my previous link, usually helps move things along to a better result.

I did start informally initial discussion was over the phone then a mixture e mails and letters. SWs initial response was amounted to it claiming that it performed as it said it would. The company gradually moved back from that position but that pull back required detailed calculations and persistent challenges on my part and a succession of 5 complaints managers fronting SW's work. 18 months in we remain in dispute about some aspects of the original complaint. Ultimately the outcome off my complaint will be simple binary decisions by the ombudsman either I am correct or SW is correct for all remaining points of dispute. I have high conviction in the validity of these [why else would I initiate and pursue my complaint?] therefore I will wait for the Ombudsman.

[vand]

For those of you intending to use Scot Widows as a pension provider - I'd think again.

At the start of July I started the process of transferring out a DC pension from Scot Widows, in advance of me taking benefits.
The transfer has just gone through, so Its taken 3.5 months!

The customer service seems to be non exsistant. At one stage they told my new provider that they were not going to continue processing the transfer, despite all the paper work being completed but wouldn't tell them why. I tried to intervene but they are almost impossible to contact via their webchat, phone or email. I spent literally hours on the phone over the course of several days, either on hold or being passed from one department to another, none of whom could help me.

Eventually I sort of gave up, but then lo and behold the transfer was completed. So I assume someone, somewhere read the emails.

The provider I used said that it was common knowledge in the industry that SW have terrible customer service, but I had no idea!

Ive transferred out from them several times, last one took 3 days. I always do it in cash - it's normally not possible to have it transferred in-specie.

Only time I did have a problem was when the name on my SIPP and SW account were not perfectly aligned.

I have little problem with this - when you are doing these sort of things you WANT all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. You want it scrutinized.