SIPP unqualified right

[bmwmike]

Hello

Not sure if this has come up before recently, but in light of the recent announcement of the minimum pension age (NMPA) increase to 57, I was looking at my documentation for when I started one of my SIPP's and it clearly says that access to the pension can be made from age 55. There is no mention of NMPA or minimum retirement age. Its an employer "group" SIPP with Aegon if that matters, but is a SIPP.

I have raised this query with the provider via their platform and their initial response was "from age 55" - literally just like that.

So I replied that was great and thanks for confirming that they acknowledge an unqualified right to access from age 55. They've since replied with a rather more formal: You do not have a "protected" pension age as that applies to persons in a special occupation (MoD, police, firefighters, professional sports persons etc). Our Ts and Cs state 55 as that is the legislation just now, We reserve the right to change our Ts and Cs to take into account any new legislation changes."

Be good to know if this is a battle I could remotely win, if anyone has experience in this area?

Thanks
mike

[bmwmike]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

My understanding is that if the pension provider's documentation at the time of taking out the product were unambiguous in stating that access is at 55 then that becomes an unqualified right to retain that age of access.

Its nothing to do with battling the government.

[NickCQ]

bmwmike said:

My understanding is that if the pension provider's documentation at the time of taking out the product were unambiguous in stating that access is at 55 then that becomes an unqualified right to retain that age of access.

Its nothing to do with battling the government.

IANAL but isn't there a legal doctrine that says a contract is voided if it would otherwise require one party to carry out an illegal action? If that's the case the contract cannot compel the provider to allow you to draw your pension before the prevailing age permitted by law.

In any case there will be some sweeper language in there to stop this problem occurring and it will not be "unambiguous in stating that access is at 55" with no ability for them to vary the age.

Of course, if you get to 55 and they won't let you draw you are free to transfer to another provider who will (hint: you won't find one).

[bmwmike]

This unqualified right was written into law specifically to cater for schemes which didn't mention the national minimum pension age.


https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/article/can-i-pro...

Transferring out to any other scheme after some time in Nov 2021 would void that. It was basically provided as a safety net I think, to accommodate poorly worded scheme policies and allow for access.

Its not a deal breaker for me either way but its a significant pot and if this is an relatively unknown area or something i'm unlikely to "win" i'll be transferring out to a SIPP provider that isn't a complete turd.

In any case 2 years isn't huge in the scheme of things, but retaining a pot in an account that can be accessed earlier than the other SIPPs would be useful.

[Mr Pointy]

bmwmike said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

My understanding is that if the pension provider's documentation at the time of taking out the product were unambiguous in stating that access is at 55 then that becomes an unqualified right to retain that age of access.

Its nothing to do with battling the government.

If you want a more useful response you could post your question here where it's more likely to be seen by Nik or someone else from the IM team:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[PhilboSE]

UK law trumps all other contracts and arrangements, for obvious reasons.

[bmwmike]

PhilboSE said:

UK law trumps all other contracts and arrangements, for obvious reasons.

Yes -> https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/pensions-...


And https://www.aegon.co.uk/news/pension-ages.html

"Where scheme rules expressly state that benefits can be drawn from age 55, the government considers that this would amount to an unqualified right."

[NickCQ]

bmwmike said:

This unqualified right was written into law specifically to cater for schemes which didn't mention the national minimum pension age.
https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/article/can-i-pro...

It sounds like it doesn't exist just yet:

Article said:

It’s worth pointing out that these are just proposals at this stage and haven’t yet been written into UK laws.

Clearly if this does get passed then what I said above about it being illegal would cease to apply. I presume that there would be some accompanying guidance about which policy wordings do and don't give rise to this right. Worth hanging on in your current scheme if that's the case.