Income protection with flexibility and after care

Insurers are under pressure to ‘treat their customers fairly’ so it is good to see Norwich Union doing just that with its revamped income protection plan which provides flexibility and strong after care service.

Income protection is an insurance which pays out if you are too ill to work for a long period. If you are so ill that you can’t ever work again, it will pay out until retirement.

You can choose the level of earnings you want to be paid while off sick. There is a selection of eight deferment periods  of between 4 and 112 weeks (the time before payments kick in) so that you can dovetail the policy with any existing cover you may have through workplace benefits or existing savings. 

The plan is also flexible in that you can choose for it to pay out until any retirement age between 50 and 70, which is good news if you intend to continue working in retirement.

Guaranteed (fixed) or reviewable premiums are available, as is indexation of benefits in line with RPI. There are also no standard exclusions.

The maximum payout is 60 per cent of the first 25,000 of annual earnings and 50 per cent of the remainder up to £180,000 -  one of the highest benefit levels in the market.

Another attractive feature is the rehabilitation service, which gives you access to trained medical staff to help you get back to work.

On the downside, if you want to extend existing cover, you may have to set up a new policy to reflect your current state of health, which could mean an increase in premiums.

Defaqto life and protection principal, Ben Heffer, says: “Where NU has something new to add is in the area of claims management, in that claims are dealt with over the phone by a dedicated team of claims advisers. Policyholders have access to an online and telephone-based health management tool, including 24 hour GP helpline and Stress Helpline.”

Income protection is a complex product and independent financial advice is strongly recommended.
To find an IFA in your area visit:
www.unbiased.co.uk

For more income protection, read the Defaqto guide:
http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/life/income-protection.aspx
 

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

All in one life product plugs gap in protection

It’s nice to see an insurance company launch a customer friendly product for a change. I’m  referring to Fortis’s Real Life protection plan, launched in conjunction with the broker, Life Search.

In  brief, Real Life incorporates seven protections - including term assurance, critical illness and income protection - all within one plan, obviating the need for the broker to sell three separate policies.

The plan works by having two pots - one for term assurance claims and one for critical illness and income  protection claims. Although not ideal, the plan has the advantage of providing broad, albeit limited, protection against death and loss of income.

Most people have some form of life cover, via with profit endowments, term assurance, whole of life policies or through workplace benefits. Far fewer people have protection against being unable to work because of long term illness.

While life cover only benefits your dependants if you die, critical illness and income protection pay the bills if you survive.

Critical illness pays you a lump sum if you survive 30 days from diagnosis of a serious illness, such as heart attack, stroke or cancer, while income protection pays you a monthly income if you are unable to work because of long term sickness.

In the case of Real Life, it works like this. Say, you buy £250,000 of life cover, there are two pots to draw on - a  £250,000 pot for term assurance, and a £250,000 pot for critical illness and income protection.

If you are diagnosed with critical illness, you can claim 12 per cent of amount in your pot, which in this case would be £30,000. You can make up to three critical illness claims, providing they are for different illnesses and there is still money in the pot.

If you make an income protection claim, it will pay out 1 per cent of the pot each month, or £2,500 in this example, until the pot runs out after eight years and four months (£2,500×100 months).

Although the income protection cover is clearly limited, the policy is a step in the right direction in that it will help close the protection gap that currently exists and the premiums are fixed for life.

As an example, a 25 year old woman office worker in normal health would pay £18.02 a month for  £100,000 of life cover up to age 60. Unless she increases the level of cover, the premium is guaranteed not to rise.

The plan is currently only sold via Life Search and Asda, but there are plans to roll it out to other brokers soon.

Matt Morris of Life Search says: “The whole point of Real Life cover is the protection it provides against all the eventualities of life. Nowadays, you are far more likely to suffer a serious illness or long term incapacity before age 65, than to die.”

For more information visit:

www.reallifecover.co.uk
www.lifesearch.co.uk
http://www.asdafinance.com/life-insurance-real-life-cover.html 

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Cheapest not always best for car cover

As the holiday season reaches its peak, millions of holiday makers will be taking to the roads this weekend, but if you’re going abroad, it’s essential to check out whether you sufficient cover.

Tescocompare.com, the car and home insurance comparison site, shows that while price remains the most important factor for over two thirds (70 per cent) of people shopping around for car insurance, simply choosing the cheapest cover may be a false economy when it comes to driving abroad.

Tescocompare.com warns that while most policies offer some sort of cover for driving abroad, some insurance providers  cover drivers for up to three days, with third party only, at which point it becomes your responsibility to take out further insurance.

Other insurers, however, will automatically include fully comprehensive cover for up to 90 days.

But understanding the differences in cover provided could save you money over the long term. Opting to pay as little as £45 more per year, means that those who drive regularly in the EU can benefit from up to 90 days free cover with insurers such as Diamond, Lloyds TSB and Kwikfit Insurance.

However,  you need to examine your policy terms as some policies will default to third party cover only, rather than comprehensive.

Paul Baxter of Tescocompare.com, says: “Less expensive insurers may quote a low premium for the year. But when extra foreign cover is charged at a high rate, initial  savings can be cancelled out by the cost of add-on items.

“While you may think third party cover is enough, if you are involved in a shunt in a rural Spanish village, you’ll soon realise that having comprehensive cover is a necessity. So be sure to investigate all the policy details before you commit to a premium.”

Tescocompare.com allows consumers you to compare 25 different policies on the basis of both features and premiums and in June this year was rated the best car insurance aggregator by Defaqto.

Tescocompare.com differentiates itself from other aggregators by the fact that the premium quoted will be the price that you pay, assuming that you don’t change the level of cover you need when you click through to the insurer. Also, the price quoted on Tescocompare.com will be the same or cheaper than if you bought direct from the insurer.

Defaqto insurance principal, Mike Powell, says:  “To compare cover features in depth, the Defaqto Compare Tool is second to none as it carries details of 213 comprehensive car insurance policies. So car owners can compare premiums via Tescocompare.com and then do an in-depth comparison of a number of policies using the Defaqto Compare Tool:

http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/motor/compare-car.aspx

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Windfalls for NU policyholders

A million Aviva policyholders in two of Norwich Union’s with-profit funds are to be made offers of windfall payouts of, on average, £1,000.
 
About 700,000 people could receive between £400 and £1,000, and another 220,000 could get a payout of between £1,000 and £3,500 if they accept. The payouts, worth a total of £1bn, follow lengthy negotiations between policyholder advocate Clare Spottiswoode and the management of Aviva (formerly known as Norwich Union).

The offer only applies to investors in two of Norwich Union’s oldest funds - CGNU Life and CULAC with-profits funds, who hold endowment policies, pension policies and with-profits bonds.
 
The payout will come from shareholders’ funds.  The company is effectively buying out policyholders’ rights to any future claim on the surplus of the two with-profits funds - known as the ‘inherited estate,’ or orphan assets.
 

The inherited estate has  largely built up over many decades because with profit funds reserve more money than they need to enable the fund to smooth returns, but also due to some policyholders failing to claim when their policies mature.
 
The amount offered to individual policyholders will be outlined later in 2008, and if accepted will probably be handed over next summer.
 
Policyholder advocate, Claire Spottiswoode, an independent expert appointed to represent policyholder interests, said: “This deal is good in all respects. It also provides a fair return to shareholders.”

About 70 per cent of the inherited estate is being transferred to policyholders in total, either as bonuses or cash and almost all of the cash payments will be tax-free.
 
That said,  individual policyholders can choose to turn down the offer, and retain their right to future claims on the inherited estate.  But Aviva warned that it does not intend to make any further payouts in the next few years.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said that its preliminary assessment was that Aviva’s offer was fair.

In June, the Treasury Select Committee criticised the FSA for failing to protect with profit policyholders, saying that not enough was being done to stop insurers from managing these funds in the interests of shareholders, rather than policyholders.

 But at least Aviva has agreed to make a payout, unlike Prudential which disappointed thousands of its policyholders last month when it changed its mind at the last minute on a proposed distribution of  its inherited estate.

Defaqto investment principal, Fraser Donaldson, commented: “One of the conclusions drawn from Prudential’s decision not to share its surplus with policyholders in the form of a windfall is that this may be of benefit to policyholders in the long term, and underlined Prudential’s commitment to this market for the foreseeable future.

“Norwich Union’s decision to pay out a windfall, could be viewed as the first step in backing away from the with profits market. Whether or not policyholders will be better off in the long term for accepting the windfall, only time will tell. At least the NU policyholders advocate and the FSA feel this a fair offer.”

http://www.aviva.com/index.asp?PageID=55&Year=2008&NewsID=4249

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Insurance myths fuel rejected claims

Research by car insurer LV= has found that over half of all motorists don’t understand their insurance cover and, as a result, could be breaking the law.

The insurer has compiled a list of the  seven of the most popular misconceptions and urges motorists to bear these in mind when buying or renewing motor cover or risk in order to avoid suffering a rejected claim.

MYTH 1:  “If I have comprehensive cover, anyone can drive my car”
 
FACT: If you lend your car to someone else who is not named on your policy, you need to ensure they have comprehensive insurance in their own name that includes a “driving other cars” clause. Otherwise, they will be uninsured. 

Even if they do have comprehensive insurance in their own name, they will still be covered for third party only when driving someone else’s car and you will not be covered for any damage they cause to your vehicle. 

If they have no insurance in their own name, they could be convicted of driving while uninsured and receive up to six points and a significant fine.
 
MYTH 2: “Unless I am at fault in an accident, my no claims discount will remain the same.”

FACT:  It’s important to remember that a ‘no claims discount’ does not mean ‘no blame discount,’ so if you make a claim, your discount will be affected, even if you are an innocent party to the event. (The exception to this is where the other party admits liability in an accident). 

An example of where the innocent motorist is penalised is if their  car is stolen or  hit by another motorist whilst parked and they did not leave their details.
 
MYTH 3: “Third party car insurance is much cheaper than comprehensive insurance.”

Fact: Drivers who take out third party cover are more likely to make a claim on their insurance than drivers who take out comprehensive cover.

Emma Holyer, press officer at LV= says: “It is younger, higher risk, drivers who tend to buy only third party cover and because they make more claims, the difference in cost between the two type of cover is minimal. For this reason, some insurers, such as NU, have stopped offering third party cover altogether.” 

MYTH 4: “Restricting my car insurance policy to just myself will make it cheaper.” 

FACT: Adding a spouse or partner often reduces the premium, because married people or those living with a partner are statistically less likely to be involved in an accident.
 
MYTH 5: “If my car is being paid for with a personal loan, the insurance will cover the cost of paying back the loan if the car is written off in an accident.”

FACT: Your insurance will payout for the value of the car at the time of the accident. But because cars depreciate quickly, the payout may be substantially less than the original cost of the car and the size of loan taken out to pay for the vehicle.

MYTH 6: “If my car is a write off following an accident and I decide not to buy another car with the money I claim, I will get back the remaining insurance premium for the rest of the year.”

FACT: A car insurance policy is agreed at the outset for a period of 12 months and once you have claimed for a write-off, the insurer has fulfilled its part of the contract, so no balance of premium will be returned  to the insured. 

However, if you replace the written-off vehicle with another car with the same insurance rating, then your premium will remain the same, and any no claims bonus will remain in place, for the rest of that policy year.

MYTH 7: “Courtesy cars come free with most car insurance policies and are provided in the event of the car being written off or if the car is stolen.” 

FACT: Many policies offer a ‘free courtesy car’ but it is often provided by the garages on their network and you may only receive one if your car is being repaired, and not if it is written off or stolen. 

Other insurers offer a courtesy car as an optional extra, in which case, you are guaranteed a car in the event of any claim.
Mike Powell, Defaqto insurance principal comments: “If you couldn’t manage without your car, it is best to go for this option. If you have a high class vehicle, some insurers offer  ’enhanced courtesy cars.’ Other extras to check out when purchasing cover  are child seat cover and legal expenses.”
 
Take a look at the Defaqto car insurance Compare Tool which enables you to analyse policies in detail:
 http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/motor/compare-car.aspx

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

New mortgage protection product worth a look

It’s not often that I’m impressed with a new product launch, but LV= (formerly known as Liverpool Victoria) has recently launched a mortgage protection insurance  plan which doubles up as an income protection plan.

Crucially, it offers ‘own occupation’ cover to all but the riskiest of jobs, allows applications up to age 65 and only charges ‘guaranteed’ rates, which means that your premiums will not rise as you grow older.

It provides cover for accident, sickness and unemployment, with level mortgage payment protection and a choice of level or index-linked living expenses protection.

You can choose a deferred period of one, two, three or six months and waiver of premium automatically kicks in during a claim.

Another plus point is that the plan allows you to run the plan until you are able to resume work, until the end of your mortgage term or until you die, unlike most MPPI policies which terminate at age 55, 60 or 65.

LV= employs telephone underwriting which means that clients are interviewed over the phone by medically qualified staff - a process which has been found to lessen the risk of the insured failing to disclose relevant medical details and hence the chances of non-disclosure disputes.

Premiums reflect age, gender, smoker status and occupation and premiums for lower-risk occupations are especially competitive.

The product has a Defaqto 5 Star rating. Defaqto insurance principal, Mike Powell, says: “This product is flexible, simple and easy to understand, and can be tailored to the consumer’s needs. The introduction of a long term contract with guaranteed premiums for an MPPI product is a massive step in the right direction for the MPPI market”

For more on income protection, read our guide: http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/life/income-protection.aspx

For more on LV=s products visit: https://www.lvmlp.co.uk/

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Are aggregator sites more aggravation than they’re worth?

Defaqto’s sixth annual home insurance report “UK Home Insurance – Aggregation or aggravation?” comes to some pretty damning conclusions  as to the quality of home insurance aggregator sites.

The report looks at the problems that consumers  face  when purchasing home insurance through  such sites, based on detailed analysis of the services offered by 28 aggregators including Comparethemarket, Confused.com GoCompare, Moneysupermarket and Tesco Compare.

Defaqto concludes that only five of these sites merit the title ‘aggregator,’ but is unable to recommend any of them for providing true ‘whole-of-market’ coverage, despite the bold claims many of them make about their breadth of coverage.

A further criticism is that few sites allow customers to compare policies on anything other than price. Even worse is the fact that some sites make a number of dangerous assumptions about underwriting factors in order to obtain quotations.

 These include assumptions as to  occupancy periods (that the property won’t be unoccupied for more than 14 days|), type of construction (conventional brick), the nature of usage (permanent residence,  not a holiday home) and that the property has not suffered from flooding.

 If these assumptions are not correct, they could invalidate the policy, so customers need to  check the eventual quotation from the insurer extremely carefully. Other sites do not allow you to cover all your insurance needs, such as cover for “possessions outside the home.”

Excesses should also be checked as they may be higher in practice than those originally quoted online.

Defaqto general insurance consultant, Mike Powell, says: “The home insurance aggregation market is no where near as developed as the car insurance market….Our research into this market has left us with the opinion that there are only five true aggregator sites. The remainder predominently provide quotations from intermediary panels, which could easily be obtained from a local broker.”

Brian Brown, head of the Defaqto Insight team,  says that aggregator sites can play a useful role in giving consumers an indication of what they might pay, but that they need to check with the provider’s site as to the exact terms and conditions of the policy.

So you need to check that the assumptions made are correct, particularly those regarding job title, occupancy levels, type of property, flood risk and claims history.

“The onus is on the consumer to check that all the details the insurer holds are correct,” says Brown.

By contrast, the Defaqto buildings and contents insurance comparison tools allow you to compare policies based on cover, rather than  price.

Visit: http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/home/compare-buildings.aspx
http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/home/compare-contents.aspx
http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/home/compare-high-net-worth.aspx

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Flooding poses new threat to property market

Defaqto’s 2008 Insight Report on the home insurance market makes interesting reading, or perhaps I should say, ‘interesting and grim,’  as some of its conclusions are enough to make any homeowner turn grey.

With 1 million homes at risk of flooding in the UK, many homeowners will have difficulty in the years to come in finding buildings and contents insurance, as insurers increasingly reject properties which are remotely risky.

With the ABI’s agreement with the Government over the willingness of its members to continue to insure flood-risk properties at breaking point, there will no doubt come a time when all properties in flood-risk areas will become uninsurable.

 Such properties are not only a personal liability, but unmortgageable and therefore unsellable.

As the report’s author, Defatqto principal, Brian Brown, says: “Such a threat to thousands of houses would have a massive impact on the already fragile housing market….. Already many householders in flood-hit areas are finding that new insurers will not take them on their books and that their existing insurer will only continue if they accept significant premium rises, coupled with significant excess levels.”

In fact, it is even worse than that. Halifax has started to increase the excess on properties  to as much as £350 for properties which are simply near to flood risk areas, and even for homeowners who have never made a flood-related claim. 

Brian Brown predicts that for some homeowners, the level of excess will force them to change the way they live. Changes will be needed in the construction standards of homes in flood plains, with features such as plasterboard walls and wooden floors being  having to be replaced with concrete flooring.

Electrical sockets will have to be installed well above ground level and homeowners will need to buy furniture which can be moved easily and at short notice.

Brian Brown warns that otherwise homeowners owning flood-risk properties will face a clean-up bill of £20,000 to £30,000 at least once every 20-30 years. Some householders have already begun to employ private companies to install individual flood protection systems for their homes, he says.

Most worrying of all is the fact that the Government collected more money in VAT revenue from flood repair claims in 2007, than it spent on flood protection measures in the same year.

It’s a bit like the sale of tobacco and the tax revenue it generates. We all know it’s bad for us, but it sometimes it seems as though it is the Government which is the most addicted.

To compare insurance products, visit Defaqto’s unique Compare tool:
http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/insurance/home/compare-buildings.aspx

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

IFA news round up

June saw a continuing lively debate on the implications of the FSA’s interim feedback report on the future of financial services distribution.

While IFAs see it as an opportunity to differentiate themselves as true advisers, the banks are fighting a fierce rearguard action to have the proposals overturned.

Independent analyst, Ned Cazalet, warned that the FSA could face “high legal hurdles”, if it tries to carry through its planned separation of sales and advice, saying that the regulator should have given more focus to issues such as churning and the sustainability of business models rather than multi-ties.

But Pump Court barrister, Peter Hamilton, disputed this, saying that the meaning of ‘adviser’ should boil down to for whom the intermediary is acting: “If an intermediary is an agent of a product provider, then anything said to investors can be no more than a recommendation.”

Actuarial firm, Towers Perrin, meanwhile, said the RDR had failed to recognise that tied or multi-tied advisers can in many cases deliver a better service than whole of market advisers.

AIFA warned that the banks are fighting a rearguard action to get the interim proposals of the RDR reversed, prompting the trade body to reconvene its RDR working party, consisting of executives from the principal networks and a number of IFA firms.

But the FSA is reported to be standing its ground against heavy lobbying by the British Bankers’ Association, with FSA officials understood to have rebuffed calls from the BBA for a rethink on a primary advice channel. The ABI and the BBA are currently conducting research into assisted purchase with a report due in August.

However, the Smaller Businesses Practitioner Panel fears that the RDR may force some small firms out of business and push up regulatory fees.

AIFA director general, Chris Cummings, urged advisers to grasp the opportunity handed to them by the RDR by rising to the challenge and raising their game. The RDR proposals would give IFAs the chance to take sole ownership of the ‘advice tag’ and push out the sales people who are currently masquerading as advisers.

Cummings also welcomed the interim feedback’s stipulation that QCA level 4 should be the minimum qualification for advisers but called for membership of a professional body to be voluntary so that firms can differentiate themselves.

FSA RDR associate, William Tolmie, told delegates on PIMS not to worry about the timescale to conform with the RDR because the final shape of the regulation was not decided and because “qualifications take time to acquire.” CII head of policy and public affairs, David Thompson called for a transition period of four to six years.

Elsewhere, personal accounts continued to attract differing views. Ned Cazalet dubbed the government-sponsored pensions “a mis-selling scandal in the making” because of the effect of means testing on poorer workers pension pots, an issue much publicised by Scottish Life’s Steve Bee and pensions economist, Ros Altmann.

But Clerical Medical managing director, John van Der Wielen, called for compulsion, rather than soft compulsion, while a growing band of industry bodies is calling for  auto-enrolment for GPPs to be allowed before 2012.

Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, chief executive Tim Jones, admitted at a meeting that it would not be able to check whether contributions to personal accounts were correct and Alan Whalley of the Actuarial Profession doubted whether the two year timetable to test the new scheme was achievable.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal rejected the county court judgement which said it is unfair for advisers to have to pay a FOS case fee where a complaint is not upheld. Dolly and Brian Pickering of IFA firm Heath Moor & Edgecomb (HME) are to take their case to the House of Lords.

HME also lost another Appeal Court case in which it had argued that the FOS should follow common law when adjudicating complaints.

Elsewhere, investment bond business fell by nearly 40 per cent in Q1 2008 compared with the previous quarter because of the changes to the capital gains tax regime.

The ABI extended until 2014 the moratorium on genetic test results, allowing consumers to buy substantial amounts of insurance without having to disclose adverse results of predictive genetic tests.

Norwich Union is to join Legal & General by introducing postcode pricing for annuities from September.

Clive Cowdery astonished the City by making a play for Bradford& Bingley, along with some its principal investors, but then withdrew his offer when B&B refused to open its books.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Investors to have more control over their pension funds

A long waited ask of the pensions industry has finally been granted. The rules governing how ‘protected rights’ can be invested are to be relaxed from October this year.

Protected rights funds accrue if you choose to contract out of the State Second Pension or S2P (formerly known as Serps, the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme).

By contracting out of the S2P,  you are assuming that you can invest the money better yourself in order to create a large pension pot for retirement.

When you opt out, the Government pays a rebate of your national insurance contributions, plus some tax relief into your pension, whether this is a final salary scheme or some form of personal pension, such as a group personal pension, stakeholder or Sipp.

Over many years, this sum can mount up to a five or even six figure sum, but until now, the Government has insisted on strict rules as to how this money can be invested.

This was because the Government believed that money saved to replace state benefits should be ringfenced from too much investment risk, so protected rights could only be invested in cash, gilts or insurance company funds within an ‘appropriate personal pension.’

A few pension providers, namely Scottish Widows, Merchant Investors and Suffolk Life, got round these restrictions by offering an insurance contract to hold protected rights alongside a trust-based Sipp for non-protected rights holdings.

But these offerings are expensive and are not available to most investors. The new rules will represent a major new freedom because all pension holders be able to invest their protected rights more or less as they wish - even in hedge funds and structured products.

IFA firm Hargreaves Lansdown estimates that the average value of protected rights is £16,500, but Suffolk Life, an upmarket Sipp provider, says that 40 per cent of its new Sipps come with an average protected rights pot of £50,000.

Defaqto pensions principal, Matt Ward, says: “Allowing Sipps to hold protected rights money from October 2008 is positive news for those clients seeking investment flexibility for these assets over and above the traditional route of insurance company funds.

“Many clients will now be able to fully consolidate their pension arrangements under one roof which should make the ongoing task of monitoring their retirement saving status more straightforward. Clients should, however, seek advice from an IFA on what action to take with their protected rights fund.”

Until 2012, protected rights funds must be used to buy an  annuity incorporating a 50 per cent spouse’s pension, but after 2012 there will be no restriction on the annuity purchased.  

For the latest annuity rates, visit the Defaqto annuity calculator to see how much income your fund will buy you:
http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/pensions.aspx

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit