Letter: Compensation for mis-sold pensions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The headline "Review may block compensation" and the first paragraph in Nic Cicutti's article (23 June) give a misleading impression of the review of pension mis-selling being conducted by the Personal Investment Authority and the life assurance industry.
With few exceptions, both sides are determined to deliver reassurance and compensation, where due, to those who were mis-sold. The reasons for this mis-selling have been well aired - misleading government propaganda, lack of communication from large pension schemes, ineffectual regulation at the time, and incompetent and commission-led salesmen. However, it should not be forgotten that, alone among these fiduciary felons, it is industry that will be paying the cost of everybody's mistakes.
The process described in your article is intended to ensure rapid delivery of proper compensation to those deserving such. A pension transfer can often be the right choice for investors seeking to control their own funds. If a transfer was carried out in a satisfactory manner, with the investor made fully aware of the risk at the time, no compensation should be paid. To do so would damage the savings of millions of investors with perfectly satisfactory pension and life assurance policies from whose funds such compensation would come.
Yours faithfully,
Gareth G. Marr
Managing Director
Moores, Marr, Bradley
Milton Keynes,
Buckinghamshire
23 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments