Rob O’Sullivan, member of the Pension Scams Industry Group board, director of financial crime compliance, Freetrade. This blog has been published on Mallowstreet and Linked in
Pension saver engagement: A shared goal
Everyone in the pensions world, from providers to policymakers, says the same thing: we want people to be more engaged with their retirement savings. That’s the foundation of the new pension schemes bill and the rationale behind small pots consolidation.
But if we’re serious about that goal, we need to confront a painful truth: the transfer process is not fit for purpose.
Many providers still require wet signatures. Some demand forms over ten pages long. Red and amber flags, designed to protect savers from scams, are being used so broadly and uncritically that they often block legitimate, regulated transfers. In seeking to prevent one kind of harm, we are causing another.
Good intentions, bad experience
Today’s savers expect slick digital-first experiences. They open bank accounts, make payments, apply for mortgages and invest from their phones. But when they try to move their pension, they’re met with requests for paperwork, long delays and vague suspicion.
This isn’t intentional. It’s simply a process that hasn’t kept up.
And yet we keep building on top of it. Each reform, each well meaning initiative, gets bolted onto a creaking structure. We want savers to consolidate, but we haven’t fixed the mechanism that lets them move their money in the first place. It’s like building a house on quicksand.
Research shows many people want to consolidate, but don’t bother because it’s too complex. Instead of addressing that complexity, we’re pushing more people into a system that doesn’t work.
The digital benchmarks are already here
In the grand scheme of technological ambition, a fully digital pension transfer process that completes in weeks, if not days, shouldn’t be visionary. It should be standard.
Open banking transformed payments. Faster payments means money can move in seconds. In pensions, we already have a blueprint for this kind of shift.
Proposals for a regulated, industry-funded transfer body to standardise and digitise transfers across ISAs and SIPPs are whirling around Westminster as part of the government’s retail investment strategy, specifically in relation to the push towards individual share ownership.It would operate like a utility; with enforceable service standards, firm-level accreditation, and centralised oversight. Transfers would become faster, safer, and clearer; not just for savers, but for schemes too.
And when it comes to pension scams, imagine the impact of a centralised approval mechanism. A system that could consistently flag concerns and give real-time visibility of the full transfer picture. With aligned standards and policy intent, we could shift the focus to genuine risk, not just unfamiliarity. Scam prevention would improve, and consumer confidence would follow.
A better way is possible
None of this is far-fetched.
Seven-day transfers. Digital authorisations. Real-time updates. These are standard in most other industries and there is no good reason that pensions should be the exception.
Pension reform isn’t just about where people’s money ends up. It’s about how easily, safely, and transparently they can move it. If we want to see real engagement, we need to start by removing the barriers that actively put people off and start meeting savers expectations.
Transfers matter. It’s time we built a system that works for pension savers and brought pension transfers into the digital age.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
About henry tapper
Founder of the Pension PlayPen,, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
Agree transfers should be very much faster – a day seems plenty to me for most cases. Two main problem areas I see. First is technology – pensions are often very backward here. Pensions dashboard could solve a lot of this although I suspect the arguments to get access to the infrastructure for non-dashboard applications will be tortuous. The second is the responsibility of checking the receiving scheme being on the ceding scheme is ridiculous. This is very obviously the job of regulators in my mind. On the technology side, I set out my thoughts a couple of years ago here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-use-pensions-dashboard-infrastructure-alan-chaplin
I’ve fairly recently consolidated all my pension pots into a single SIPP. It’s a fairly small sample but the only one I had problems with was Nest, who insisted on me sending them a copy of my birth certificate then insisting on a cooling off period. It took over a month from when I first started the transfer process for a fairly modest amount of money. Aviva on the other hand completed transfers for much larger amounts within 24 hours and Standard Life was almost as fast. No surprises that the scheme set up by the government was the slowest and most bureaucratic!
Policy docs still being sent by post.
Excessive due diligence checks from schemes acting like they are the regulator and decide on suitability of a receiving scheme, despite many having very poor service they should perhaps focus in first.
Due diligence teams that have a complete closed door ‘computer says no’ approach to working together to create smoother processes for members.
The pension dashboard will be struggle IF this isn’t resolved ahead of launch as the immediate rush to track down pensions and act on the back of it will be met by disappointment at poorly trained and under staffed contact centres, long hold times and excessive paper work if they want to transfer.
End of rant!