Small pension fund-drawing it all down in cash?
Discussion
Vanordinaire said:
Currently on lower tax rate so that makes a tax bill of 20% of £30000 (£6000)if I take the full £40000.
Is this right , or do my other pensions(which I won't be taking for another 10 years) come into it too?
You're on lower rate for your current income. I suspect the extra 30k will take you into the higher band for the year.Is this right , or do my other pensions(which I won't be taking for another 10 years) come into it too?
Van,
If you are still working and contributing to your occupational scheme, be aware that you might trigger the MPAA.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.moneyadviceserv...
If you are still working and contributing to your occupational scheme, be aware that you might trigger the MPAA.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.moneyadviceserv...
Rovinghawk said:
Vanordinaire said:
Currently on lower tax rate so that makes a tax bill of 20% of £30000 (£6000)if I take the full £40000.
Is this right , or do my other pensions(which I won't be taking for another 10 years) come into it too?
You're on lower rate for your current income. I suspect the extra 30k will take you into the higher band for the year.Is this right , or do my other pensions(which I won't be taking for another 10 years) come into it too?
To take full encashment your pension provider will almost certainly require a signed piece of paper to say you've taken professional advice.
Getting an advisor to provide that will not be very easy, for several reasons, the most pertinent being that there's little money in it for them and they carry the risk that you'll come back cap in hand once you've blown the cash wanting to sue them.
You're better off getting a proper consultation with an IFA who can look at all of your circumstances and plans and advise properly on the whole picture. Most advisors will do this work and produce a report on a contingent fee basis, as in it won't cost you to get it and the advisor only gets paid if you follow their recommendation (which you're not obliged to do).
It might help you avoid making a costly mistake (that's not a comment on your immediate plans).
Getting an advisor to provide that will not be very easy, for several reasons, the most pertinent being that there's little money in it for them and they carry the risk that you'll come back cap in hand once you've blown the cash wanting to sue them.
You're better off getting a proper consultation with an IFA who can look at all of your circumstances and plans and advise properly on the whole picture. Most advisors will do this work and produce a report on a contingent fee basis, as in it won't cost you to get it and the advisor only gets paid if you follow their recommendation (which you're not obliged to do).
It might help you avoid making a costly mistake (that's not a comment on your immediate plans).
Oakey said:
That's exactly what happened when my gf's dad did this and he wasn't aware of the implications!
This. You should be aware that the post tax free cash that you take will be added to your income for the year & you will then be subject to income tax in whichever band the combined value has taken you to.janesmith1950 said:
Most advisors will do this work and produce a report on a contingent fee basis, as in it won't cost you to get it and the advisor only gets paid if you follow their recommendation (which you're not obliged to do).
It might help you avoid making a costly mistake (that's not a comment on your immediate plans).
Hi JaneIt might help you avoid making a costly mistake (that's not a comment on your immediate plans).
I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
TFP said:
Hi Jane
I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
I'm the largest producer of IFA leads via Google AdWords in the UK and have a regulated advice business.I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
My clients range from individual IFAs to the largest advice businesses in the country.
I've got a reasonable idea how most of the market works, pre and post RDR.
TFP said:
Hi Jane
I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
TFP is correct. I believe that there was recent FCA guidance suggesting that the fee should be charged for the work completed, regardless of the client proceeding with the advice or not.I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
janesmith1950 said:
TFP said:
Hi Jane
I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
I'm the largest producer of IFA leads via Google AdWords in the UK and have a regulated advice business.I think you’re wrong on this point.
This isn’t how things work post-RDR. What you’re saying is equivalent to asking a decorator to paint your house, and deciding not to pay him because you don’t like the colour.
More fool advisers who might continue to operate in this way, but I think they are in the minority now and consumers should, in my view, avoid them.
If the only way the adviser is going to be paid is through a product sale, they’re going to get sold a product. The individual is paying the adviser for advice, and that advice might be ‘don’t buy a product’ and in this case for example, leave the money in a pension.
I would say avoid any advisers working in such a way, perhaps pay an hourly rate and what you are going to pay is going to be agreed at outset, prior to commissioning any work to be done. You might even split the advice cost from the cost of actually administering the transactions recommended (if there are any), if you decide to proceed.
My clients range from individual IFAs to the largest advice businesses in the country.
I've got a reasonable idea how most of the market works, pre and post RDR.
Then perhaps you’d like to back up the claim that the majority of advisers charge on a contingent basis, hoping that the client will proceed else they won’t get paid?
That patently isn’t true. That’s hardly Consumer Agreed Remuneration is it. It suggests that you only work with businesses where the model requires a product to be sold, as opposed to advice being the product, which probably means you work with people like St James Place.
I’m asking you to back up this claim with some fact, not with details of your google business.
TFP said:
Do you really?
Then perhaps you’d like to back up the claim that the majority of advisers charge on a contingent basis, hoping that the client will proceed else they won’t get paid?
That patently isn’t true. That’s hardly Consumer Agreed Remuneration is it. It suggests that you only work with businesses where the model requires a product to be sold, as opposed to advice being the product, which probably means you work with people like St James Place.
I’m asking you to back up this claim with some fact, not with details of your google business.
I work with about 120 firms. I run a firm.Then perhaps you’d like to back up the claim that the majority of advisers charge on a contingent basis, hoping that the client will proceed else they won’t get paid?
That patently isn’t true. That’s hardly Consumer Agreed Remuneration is it. It suggests that you only work with businesses where the model requires a product to be sold, as opposed to advice being the product, which probably means you work with people like St James Place.
I’m asking you to back up this claim with some fact, not with details of your google business.
The current market model is to charge a % of the funds actioned/managed.
There are a small number of advisors who use a fee based charging model, however those are few and far between. One reason is that if you use a fee based model, you ask the customer to take the risk that some positive action is recommended. Not many consumers are willing (or often able) to afford to pay £1500+ up front from their own cash to find out whether or not their current pensions/investments could be improved upon.
Secondly, if all the consumer was doing was paying for advice, it becomes harder for an advisor to prove a product sale was achieved or may be achieved as a result of that advice, which means the fees are more likely to become VATable, as the advice exemption for VAT only applies in those circumstances where the sale of an exempt product is the purpose of the advice. It is not desirable for most advisors to charge VAT.
Whether or not you believe/agree with me isn't really important, however if you send the OP to market looking for an advice fee only IFA you will be fishing in a far, far smaller pool than those who charge contingently.
That's why we get 5000 consumer enquiries every month looking for an IFAs, after their provider has told them to get an IFA signature and they've struggled to get one (because so few IFAs work on your fee only basis).
Either my 120 or so clients are atypical of the marketplace, and the specialist press are wrong in their reporting, or your personal experience is not reflective of the current marketplace.
Bearing in mind I'm familiar with the models of people like SJP, Tilney, Tavistock, Charles Derby, Intrinsic and many more national and regional firms, that one of my directors and shareholders is an ex-FCA inspector with a very successful compliance business and that my day to day business, that sold about £5m worth of leads to IFAs last year, keeps me in touch with hundreds of IFAs every month, and that we help 1000s of consumers find an IFA every month, not to mention I'm a CF1 at my own regulated firm (that charges on a contingent basis), think I have at least a cursory understanding of the advice retail market.
darreni said:
TFP is correct. I believe that there was recent FCA guidance suggesting that the fee should be charged for the work completed, regardless of the client proceeding with the advice or not.
The current discussions on contingent charging has been focused on DB transfers, which have been a hot topic with the pensions committee and therefore FCA. British Steel has been a catalyst for this. Even so, there is no ban on contingent charging in that arena (or any plan in the pipeline for a ban).The issue will likely solve itself to some extent, as firms behaving badly in the DB market will find themselves uninsurable.
We avoid undertaking DB work, as it is relatively toxic in the current marketplace.
I’m sorry Jane but even with your bragging you’re still getting it wrong.
Your latest claim is that IFA’s don’t want to charge ‘fees’ because VAT might be levied due to a lack of intermediation going on.
I’ll bring you back to your original mis-information in a moment, but I would firstly point out that if I were one of your clients, i’d Be far from happy that you are telling their prospective clients they can turn up and get free advice. That’s just nuts isn’t? You want them to pay you for leads but you think those leads can turn up and get free advice??! How do you not see this?
Next, we’re talking about IFAs and you have named largely product selling tied advice/wealth management firms, the largest of which is a well known integrated business which requires it to sell its products to get paid. You’re not going to go to such businesses and get advice, you’re going to get flogged a product.
So let’s just get it straight about fees. All consumers of advice pay fees. These might be facilitated by a product, or they might be paid explicitly via something like a cheque. The point I picked you up on is your claim that a client can see an adviser and pay nothing. They can ask for advice and walk away if they decide not to take up the advice. I don’t think you’ve read your own clients’ terms and conditions because you’ll notice in their client agreements, signed and agreed with the client prior to any work having taken place, you’ll see specific wording to cover this off. This may be an oversight in your own advice business or reflective of the end of the market you deal with, but your claim is completely wrong. The client will have received advice on the basis of a signed agreement confirming that they will pay whether the advice is transacted or not. This is nothing to do with intermediation and VAT. The price sensitivity of the market is not driven by VAT. Your premise is that everyone in the hourly rate space is then not going on to intermediate and thus people are having to pay VAT, which is again, wrong.
So, I bring you back to your original claim, that someone can go see an adviser, request advice, receive that advice and walk away having paid nothing. That is not true. To receive advice they will have signed a contract with the adviser which will state they are paying whether the advice is transacted or not. Are you saying that your own firm’s Client Agreement does not contain such a clause? Are you also saying that all the names you dropped don’t have Client Agreements that have such a clause? ( I’ll answer the latter question for you THEY DO - you’ll even find some of them online).
You seem to think that the advice market still operates in a pre-RDR pre-CAR fashion.
Is is that you have forgotten what you said in your original post? Perhaps you mis-spoke, because I can’t believe you’re getting it this wrong.
Your latest claim is that IFA’s don’t want to charge ‘fees’ because VAT might be levied due to a lack of intermediation going on.
I’ll bring you back to your original mis-information in a moment, but I would firstly point out that if I were one of your clients, i’d Be far from happy that you are telling their prospective clients they can turn up and get free advice. That’s just nuts isn’t? You want them to pay you for leads but you think those leads can turn up and get free advice??! How do you not see this?
Next, we’re talking about IFAs and you have named largely product selling tied advice/wealth management firms, the largest of which is a well known integrated business which requires it to sell its products to get paid. You’re not going to go to such businesses and get advice, you’re going to get flogged a product.
So let’s just get it straight about fees. All consumers of advice pay fees. These might be facilitated by a product, or they might be paid explicitly via something like a cheque. The point I picked you up on is your claim that a client can see an adviser and pay nothing. They can ask for advice and walk away if they decide not to take up the advice. I don’t think you’ve read your own clients’ terms and conditions because you’ll notice in their client agreements, signed and agreed with the client prior to any work having taken place, you’ll see specific wording to cover this off. This may be an oversight in your own advice business or reflective of the end of the market you deal with, but your claim is completely wrong. The client will have received advice on the basis of a signed agreement confirming that they will pay whether the advice is transacted or not. This is nothing to do with intermediation and VAT. The price sensitivity of the market is not driven by VAT. Your premise is that everyone in the hourly rate space is then not going on to intermediate and thus people are having to pay VAT, which is again, wrong.
So, I bring you back to your original claim, that someone can go see an adviser, request advice, receive that advice and walk away having paid nothing. That is not true. To receive advice they will have signed a contract with the adviser which will state they are paying whether the advice is transacted or not. Are you saying that your own firm’s Client Agreement does not contain such a clause? Are you also saying that all the names you dropped don’t have Client Agreements that have such a clause? ( I’ll answer the latter question for you THEY DO - you’ll even find some of them online).
You seem to think that the advice market still operates in a pre-RDR pre-CAR fashion.
Is is that you have forgotten what you said in your original post? Perhaps you mis-spoke, because I can’t believe you’re getting it this wrong.
You've extrapolated and inferred things I haven't said. Additionally, I haven't been bragging, merely providing some of the evidence (that you asked for) and context.
If consumers could.inly get advice on the basis they would have to pay for it, irrespective of outcome, the mass market would cease to function.
Hey ho.
I have tried to help the OP by explaining he will find it hard to get an IFA to sign his form so he can get encashment.
If you want to prove me wrong, you'll be happy to offer this service for him, won't you? How much will you charge him for providing the advice?
If consumers could.inly get advice on the basis they would have to pay for it, irrespective of outcome, the mass market would cease to function.
Hey ho.
I have tried to help the OP by explaining he will find it hard to get an IFA to sign his form so he can get encashment.
If you want to prove me wrong, you'll be happy to offer this service for him, won't you? How much will you charge him for providing the advice?
So, trying to support your claim via by regurgitating your CV hasn’t worked, now it’s deflection. Congratulations on your achievements of which you are clearly proud. You seem unwillingly to offer anything on the original point you made, which I’m to focus solely on.
Why is it that you think the mass market operates differently to what I have articulated? Consumers in the mass market sign client agreements like everyone else.
The OP need look no further than you, where the advice is free....according to you.
Why is it that you think the mass market operates differently to what I have articulated? Consumers in the mass market sign client agreements like everyone else.
The OP need look no further than you, where the advice is free....according to you.
darreni said:
TFP is correct. I believe that there was recent FCA guidance suggesting that the fee should be charged for the work completed, regardless of the client proceeding with the advice or not.
In CP18/7, there is a proposal to make it mandatory to provide the client with a suitability report where the recommendation is not to transfer; this proposal will probably come into force. This adds further weight to the argument to move to a non-contingent basis for the ‘stay-or-go’ assessment as the same amount of work is typically being undertaken whether the recommendation is to transfer or not.TFP said:
It suggests that you only work with businesses where the model requires a product to be sold, as opposed to advice being the product, which probably means you work with people like St James Place.
darreni said:
TFP is correct. I believe that there was recent FCA guidance suggesting that the fee should be charged for the work completed, regardless of the client proceeding with the advice or not.
janesmith1950 said:
The current discussions on contingent charging has been focused on DB transfers, which have been a hot topic with the pensions committee and therefore FCA. British Steel has been a catalyst for this. Even so, there is no ban on contingent charging in that arena (or any plan in the pipeline for a ban).
We must be careful not to lose perspective. This issue isn’t an either/or issue. A lot is talked about suitability but very little about controls (which is a serious failing, as controls are critical). If a process has robust controls, then to an extent, a lot of risk can be mitigated. Clients too, are also affected by biases. As implied by Jane, some clients may not want to obtain advice but are forced to by the law. Hence many clients may be coming to ‘us’ who would not be our normal type of client and with the mind-set we are used to. The first step to managing biases (our’s, as well as those within a client) is to recognise that we all have them. For those who are following, but not understanding, contingent charging is where the client pays if the recommendation is to transfer and there is no payment if the recommendation is to stay in the scheme. Even if we charge on a non-contingent charging basis we do not completely eliminate the conflict as there is additional income, perhaps from implementation and usually from ongoing adviser charges anyway.
But, yes, contingent charging involves managing a conflict of interest; I refer you back to my previous point. Contingent charging per se, isn’t the issue – it’s abuse of contingent charging which is. CP18/7 raises the possibility of a contingent charging ban but this was not raised as a proposal for consultation (rather, as a discussion point). If this option does go forward, it will still need a consultation process. However, I do not think the FCA will progress because some clients are not able to afford a non-contingent fee and hence there would be issues for access to advice.
I am currently staffing a paper through FCA and TPR which should drastically reduce those being scammed by allegedly incompetent and corrupt components up and down the distribution chain. British Steel would still have been an issue even if there was a ban on contingent charging.
TFP said:
So, trying to support your claim via by regurgitating your CV hasn’t worked, now it’s deflection. Congratulations on your achievements of which you are clearly proud. You seem unwillingly to offer anything on the original point you made, which I’m to focus solely on.
Why is it that you think the mass market operates differently to what I have articulated? Consumers in the mass market sign client agreements like everyone else.
The OP need look no further than you, where the advice is free....according to you.
@TFPWhy is it that you think the mass market operates differently to what I have articulated? Consumers in the mass market sign client agreements like everyone else.
The OP need look no further than you, where the advice is free....according to you.
You are completely and utterly wrong on this. Jane is completely correct.
You would do yourself a favour by stop making such a big deal about how wrong you are. Really, it is embarrassing for you.
TFP said:
I’m sorry Jane but even with your bragging you’re still getting it wrong.
Your latest claim is that IFA’s don’t want to charge ‘fees’ because VAT might be levied due to a lack of intermediation going on.
I’ll bring you back to your original mis-information in a moment, but I would firstly point out that if I were one of your clients, i’d Be far from happy that you are telling their prospective clients they can turn up and get free advice. That’s just nuts isn’t? You want them to pay you for leads but you think those leads can turn up and get free advice??! How do you not see this?
Next, we’re talking about IFAs and you have named largely product selling tied advice/wealth management firms, the largest of which is a well known integrated business which requires it to sell its products to get paid. You’re not going to go to such businesses and get advice, you’re going to get flogged a product.
So let’s just get it straight about fees. All consumers of advice pay fees. These might be facilitated by a product, or they might be paid explicitly via something like a cheque. The point I picked you up on is your claim that a client can see an adviser and pay nothing. They can ask for advice and walk away if they decide not to take up the advice. I don’t think you’ve read your own clients’ terms and conditions because you’ll notice in their client agreements, signed and agreed with the client prior to any work having taken place, you’ll see specific wording to cover this off. This may be an oversight in your own advice business or reflective of the end of the market you deal with, but your claim is completely wrong. The client will have received advice on the basis of a signed agreement confirming that they will pay whether the advice is transacted or not. This is nothing to do with intermediation and VAT. The price sensitivity of the market is not driven by VAT. Your premise is that everyone in the hourly rate space is then not going on to intermediate and thus people are having to pay VAT, which is again, wrong.
So, I bring you back to your original claim, that someone can go see an adviser, request advice, receive that advice and walk away having paid nothing. That is not true. To receive advice they will have signed a contract with the adviser which will state they are paying whether the advice is transacted or not. Are you saying that your own firm’s Client Agreement does not contain such a clause? Are you also saying that all the names you dropped don’t have Client Agreements that have such a clause? ( I’ll answer the latter question for you THEY DO - you’ll even find some of them online).
You seem to think that the advice market still operates in a pre-RDR pre-CAR fashion.
Is is that you have forgotten what you said in your original post? Perhaps you mis-spoke, because I can’t believe you’re getting it this wrong.
OK, I'll give it a go:Your latest claim is that IFA’s don’t want to charge ‘fees’ because VAT might be levied due to a lack of intermediation going on.
I’ll bring you back to your original mis-information in a moment, but I would firstly point out that if I were one of your clients, i’d Be far from happy that you are telling their prospective clients they can turn up and get free advice. That’s just nuts isn’t? You want them to pay you for leads but you think those leads can turn up and get free advice??! How do you not see this?
Next, we’re talking about IFAs and you have named largely product selling tied advice/wealth management firms, the largest of which is a well known integrated business which requires it to sell its products to get paid. You’re not going to go to such businesses and get advice, you’re going to get flogged a product.
So let’s just get it straight about fees. All consumers of advice pay fees. These might be facilitated by a product, or they might be paid explicitly via something like a cheque. The point I picked you up on is your claim that a client can see an adviser and pay nothing. They can ask for advice and walk away if they decide not to take up the advice. I don’t think you’ve read your own clients’ terms and conditions because you’ll notice in their client agreements, signed and agreed with the client prior to any work having taken place, you’ll see specific wording to cover this off. This may be an oversight in your own advice business or reflective of the end of the market you deal with, but your claim is completely wrong. The client will have received advice on the basis of a signed agreement confirming that they will pay whether the advice is transacted or not. This is nothing to do with intermediation and VAT. The price sensitivity of the market is not driven by VAT. Your premise is that everyone in the hourly rate space is then not going on to intermediate and thus people are having to pay VAT, which is again, wrong.
So, I bring you back to your original claim, that someone can go see an adviser, request advice, receive that advice and walk away having paid nothing. That is not true. To receive advice they will have signed a contract with the adviser which will state they are paying whether the advice is transacted or not. Are you saying that your own firm’s Client Agreement does not contain such a clause? Are you also saying that all the names you dropped don’t have Client Agreements that have such a clause? ( I’ll answer the latter question for you THEY DO - you’ll even find some of them online).
You seem to think that the advice market still operates in a pre-RDR pre-CAR fashion.
Is is that you have forgotten what you said in your original post? Perhaps you mis-spoke, because I can’t believe you’re getting it this wrong.
Financial advisers (note the correct spelling) nearly all make contingent charges as these are VAT exempt. Non-contingent charges are supplies that are subject to VAT.
If you believe otherwise then you are an idiot, quite frankly.
You are (if you weren't aware) already looking like an idiot.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff