Unreasonable AML demands from SIPP provider
Discussion
Hey.
I'm hoping others in the financial services industry will see this and respond.
As most of you know I am a SSAS provider. You will appreciate this is an occupational pension arrangement not a personal pension arrangement. We commonly take in transfers from previous pension arrangements. My company is never the sole trustee, it can't be for a SSAS.
A SIPP provider is demanding certified ID for all the trustees of the SSAS (one of which is of course their own client!) before they will pay the transfer value. They claim that AML checks on the receiving scheme trustees is part of their transfer out due diligence. I think this is excessive and unreasonable.
Any thoughts please?
I'm hoping others in the financial services industry will see this and respond.
As most of you know I am a SSAS provider. You will appreciate this is an occupational pension arrangement not a personal pension arrangement. We commonly take in transfers from previous pension arrangements. My company is never the sole trustee, it can't be for a SSAS.
A SIPP provider is demanding certified ID for all the trustees of the SSAS (one of which is of course their own client!) before they will pay the transfer value. They claim that AML checks on the receiving scheme trustees is part of their transfer out due diligence. I think this is excessive and unreasonable.
Any thoughts please?
Squiddly Diddly said:
Hey.
I'm hoping others in the financial services industry will see this and respond.
As most of you know I am a SSAS provider. You will appreciate this is an occupational pension arrangement not a personal pension arrangement. We commonly take in transfers from previous pension arrangements. My company is never the sole trustee, it can't be for a SSAS.
A SIPP provider is demanding certified ID for all the trustees of the SSAS (one of which is of course their own client!) before they will pay the transfer value. They claim that AML checks on the receiving scheme trustees is part of their transfer out due diligence. I think this is excessive and unreasonable.
Any thoughts please?
You never know how much of a prick your current Provider is until you try to move away from them.I'm hoping others in the financial services industry will see this and respond.
As most of you know I am a SSAS provider. You will appreciate this is an occupational pension arrangement not a personal pension arrangement. We commonly take in transfers from previous pension arrangements. My company is never the sole trustee, it can't be for a SSAS.
A SIPP provider is demanding certified ID for all the trustees of the SSAS (one of which is of course their own client!) before they will pay the transfer value. They claim that AML checks on the receiving scheme trustees is part of their transfer out due diligence. I think this is excessive and unreasonable.
Any thoughts please?
Total contrast to the Banking sector in my experience.
The AML guidance is open to interpretation. That means that for onboarding new business you are perfectly within your rights to use online ID confirmation procedures as offered by multiple firms but it also means that you can insist on everything being certified copies of physical documents. In addition, one regulated firm can take AML certificates from another.
What this means is that the AML side can be used to assist swift onboarding and to also help with client retention.
I may have misunderstood the OPs issue but it reads as if a firm is using the process to try and stop clients leaving?
If so, what ID do they require for onboarding new clients? Does it differ from what they are requesting for this process?
What this means is that the AML side can be used to assist swift onboarding and to also help with client retention.
I may have misunderstood the OPs issue but it reads as if a firm is using the process to try and stop clients leaving?
If so, what ID do they require for onboarding new clients? Does it differ from what they are requesting for this process?
I think the OP is over a barrel on this one, but the point is an interesting one.
Firstly, the ceding provider should absolutely be checking that the SSAS is an HMRC approved scheme and that the client is a genuine employee of the company sponsoring the scheme.
But demanding certified ID for all of the trustees does not in any way assist in establishing the above.
We are seeing (from certain providers) a real abuse of the AML requirements simply to frustrate transfers away and stop clients from leaving.
One we are currently dealing with has gone behind the back of the authorised adviser and contacted the client directly asking for all sorts of information it already has and other information that is simply irrelevant and they have no right to ask for.
It is obvious to the client, his adviser and us that the provider is doing everything it can to stop the client from leaving.
If this isn't resolved in the next few days they are going to get a big shock with a 5 figure compensation claim that the client will win hands down.
BTW, the firm in question has gone as far as to imply Intelligent Money is dodgy as it needs to make enquiries we are "legitimate" and "meet HMRC requirements" in order to "protect you and your pension".
This firm knows exactly who we are (they were quoted in a news article about us banning DB transfers only 2 weeks ago). I have now found out this is not an isolated event.
Good luck OP.
Firstly, the ceding provider should absolutely be checking that the SSAS is an HMRC approved scheme and that the client is a genuine employee of the company sponsoring the scheme.
But demanding certified ID for all of the trustees does not in any way assist in establishing the above.
We are seeing (from certain providers) a real abuse of the AML requirements simply to frustrate transfers away and stop clients from leaving.
One we are currently dealing with has gone behind the back of the authorised adviser and contacted the client directly asking for all sorts of information it already has and other information that is simply irrelevant and they have no right to ask for.
It is obvious to the client, his adviser and us that the provider is doing everything it can to stop the client from leaving.
If this isn't resolved in the next few days they are going to get a big shock with a 5 figure compensation claim that the client will win hands down.
BTW, the firm in question has gone as far as to imply Intelligent Money is dodgy as it needs to make enquiries we are "legitimate" and "meet HMRC requirements" in order to "protect you and your pension".
This firm knows exactly who we are (they were quoted in a news article about us banning DB transfers only 2 weeks ago). I have now found out this is not an isolated event.
Good luck OP.
It's a pity the FCA or Pensions Regulator cannot establish a set procedure for this. Both demand providers undertake potential pension liberation checks, yet wash their hands on what providers actually do for this.
It means every provider is different, and they change their procedure with alarming regularity. It causes us so much work and now typically takes over three months to effect the transfer in.
It means every provider is different, and they change their procedure with alarming regularity. It causes us so much work and now typically takes over three months to effect the transfer in.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff