Why wasn't my pension lifestyled? I lost £8,500 in stock market downturn: CRANE ON THE CASE
I have a personal pension which I opened in the 1980s with Wesleyan Financial Services.
In recent years, I received letters and emails suggesting my pension would be 'lifestyled' into a lower-risk fund five years ahead of my claim date, which was set to be when I turned 65 in March 2020.
This did not happen and instead, my money remained in a fund rated moderate-high risk/high reward until March 2020.
At this point, I realised what had happened and asked for the switch to be made manually. The same month, I asked for my pension date to be moved forward five years to March 2025.
Shortly after, the stock market plummeted due to the pandemic and I am now entering retirement with a shortfall in my fund.
Had my pension been moved into a lower-risk fund in 2015, as Wesleyan said it would be in its letters, I believe I would not have lost as much money.
In the event, it fell by approximately £8,500. Is there anything I can do? I.M, Exeter
Helen Crane of This is Money replies: We initially spoke late last year, but I thought your story was worth sharing now, as those approaching retirement may once again be concerned about stock market turbulence caused by Donald Trump's tariffs and what that means for their retirement funds.
Losses during the pandemic were much steeper, however. In March 2020, your pension was worth about £50,500, but by April 2021 this had fallen by more than 20 per cent to about £39,000.
At the end of 2024, it had recovered somewhat, rising to £42,000.
Like a number of pension savers, you were unfortunate to also be affected by the stock market fall of 2022, which happened after the mini-Budget.
You expected to be shielded against these losses to a degree, thanks to a common feature of pensions known as lifestyling.
This is where savers' money is moved into lower-risk investments as they approach retirement. The idea is that, while the gains they make won't be as large as previous years, the risk of losing money is also lower.
It is intended to avoid big drops just before they need to access their money.
You were sent a letter five years out from your initial retirement date, which explained why you might wish to consider moving your pension into lower-risk funds.
This also included a generic 'information sheet' about lifestyling, which wasn't tailored to your pension specifically.
This said that 'Lifestyling starts five years before your benefit date, unless you tell us you don't want to include it' - so you thought this would happen.
I contacted Wesleyan to ask why it did not.
It told me that as the pension was taken out in the 1980s, when lifestyling was uncommon, the plan did not have this built in to it.
Lifestyling only became popular in the 2000s, as customers with more modern 'unitised' funds approached retirement.
This is where a savers' money is used to buy 'units' in a fund, and receives the same amount of 'units' back at the end - hopefully having grown in value through investments.
Before that, many policies paid out a defined sum or benefit when they matured, regardless of how the investments performed.
As your plan predated this change, Wesleyan confirmed that lifestyling would not happen unless you gave the instruction.
The company claims that it confirmed to you that lifestyling was not part of your policy in 2019, though you did not share that letter with me.
It previously investigated a complaint from you, which was not upheld. Wesleyan also told me that the Financial Ombudsman Service investigated your complaint and agreed with Wesleyan's finding that it was not accountable for any financial loss.
A spokesperson for the Wesleyan Group said: 'We were sorry to hear of I.M's complaint in 2022.
'We fully investigated it at that time, as did the independent Financial Ombudsman, and both agreed that Wesleyan was not to be held accountable.'
I do agree with you that some of the information you were sent by Wesleyan could have been clearer, in particular the fact that it sent you a generic 'information sheet' on lifestyling which didn't reflect your situation.
However, you may be interested to learn that some people who did have their pension lifestyled in the last few years ended up losing a lot of money from their pot, too.
That is because lower-risk pension funds are often heavily invested in government bonds or gilts, which tumbled in value after the 2022 mini-Budget - something that not many people expected.
Of course, it is impossible to know now whether you would have ended up better or worse off.
See this column former pensions minister Steve Webb wrote for us at the time.
The global trade war launched by US president Donald Trump has sparked a bond sell-off in recent weeks.
If the chaos continues or worsens, older workers may once again discover they are sitting on big pension fund losses right on the brink of retirement, which they might be forced to delay as a result.
Finally, I don't know what your plans are for the pension, but if you left it invested, as opposed to buying an annuity for example, the investments would have the chance to increase again.
Some experts would suggest avoiding lifestyling if you intended to stay invested for the long term, as this could result in higher returns - though there is always risk.
I am not a pensions expert so it is worth taking proper advice, but this is something to consider.
Clarks turned away my £75 voucher
Last Christmas, my son bought me a £75 voucher for Clarks shoe shop.
When I tried to spend it in my local store recently, I was told the card had not been validated and was therefore unusable.
It was hard to get hold of the customer service department, so I lodged a complaint online.
I've recently been told by Clarks that the card has been reloaded - but only with a balance of £26. E.A, Hampshire
Helen Crane replies: Clarks is a staple of the British high street, so it is unfortunate to hear that the firm put its foot in it when it came to sorting out your gift voucher.
You told me the assistant in the Andover store spent 40 minutes on the phone trying to get it sorted, but in the end said you needed to call customer services yourself.
After trying and failing to get through on the phone for 90 minutes, you put in a complaint via the website, providing the receipts for the gift cards from your son.
As your reward for all that effort, you got back only a fraction of the full balance.
You told me: 'The effort and hours spent trying to get this sorted was disgusting. The company have and are making this as difficult as possible for people, perhaps hoping people give up!'
I attempted to contact the shoe retailer myself for several months, but unfortunately never received a reply.
However, one of our complaints must have eventually been heard, as you recently contacted me to say the remaining £49 had been credited to your voucher.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Blue-haired Democrat snaps during showdown with Pete Hegseth... just days after her furious tirade at RFK Jr
In a dramatic moment on Capitol Hill Democratic congresswoman Rosa DeLauro abruptly cut off Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, raising her voice as he outlined his department's ambitious plans to ramp up submarine production. On Tuesday, Hegseth testified before the House Appropriations Committee in Washington DC, where lawmakers pressed him about the defense department's 2026 budget. The administration's $1 trillion plan includes major investments to boost Navy submarine construction in Connecticut. Among the committee members was blue-haired, Connecticut Rep Rosa DeLauro, who became visibly agitated as she demanded Hegseth clarify his plans. 'Well first of all I want to thank this committee for the flexibility alongside fiscal year 2025 and the continuing resolution,' Hegseth began, seconds before the hearing took a chaotic turn. Without letting him to finish his sentence DeLauro swiftly interrupted, snapping: 'Well I would hope that you would thank this committee for the funding that it had made'. 'We have made a serious investment, so your first statement is inaccurate,' she added. 'We have focused squarely on submarines and now we want to know where that is going and what your plan is for the continued investments to reach production levels and make sure that that is an area that is covered for our national security.' When DeLauro accused Hegseth of lacking details in his plan, he quickly fired back, acknowledging that the investment was indeed earmarked for shipbuilding and submarine production. When DeLauro accused Hegseth of lacking details in his plan he quickly fired back, acknowledging that the investment was indeed earmarked for shipbuilding The 45-year-old Defense Secretary claimed that former President Joe Biden had recklessly wasted much of the previous funding. At the mere mention of Biden, DeLauro cut in once again, snapping at Hegseth, 'Please - I want your plan!' 'I've had difficulty with the prior administration and I don't mind calling them out,' she shouted. 'What is your plan for the future?' 'Can we get that in writing and on paper so that we know where you're going? Because we don't have anything today! We have zip, nada, in knowing where you're going,' she continued, angrily raising her voice with each word. 'You can talk percentages. You can talk about whatever you want. But unless this committee sees dollars and cents and where you're going and what your plan is, then we can reconsider what you're planning to do to go forward. Give us the details!' Yet the irate congresswoman abruptly cut off the exchange, denying Hegseth any chance to respond. The fiery exchange unfolded just weeks after DeLauro found herself locked in another explosive match - this time with RFK Jr. Last month, the US Secretary of Health faced tough questions from both Republicans and Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee about his specific department's 2026 budget. During the hearing, DeLauro accused RFK Jr of breaking the law by cutting funding already approved by Congress - specifically targeting money allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as reported by WSHU. When DeLauro pressed him on whether he would commit to spending the funds allocated in the 2024 budget, RFK Jr replied, 'As I said, Ranking Member, if you appropriate the money, I'm going to spend that money.' 'The money has been appropriated,' DeLauro snapped. 'If you're not willing to accept the funds that have been lawfully voted by members of the House and Senate, on the money for the National Institutes of Health.' 'Well, I'm going to hold you to your word that that funding is there; it should be transferred from 2024 to 2025,' she continued, speaking with her hands and aggressively pointing her finger in his direction. 'You've cut, already, $20 billion. Let's get that money back. You have an obligation to carry out the law and to implement what Congress has done.' Before moving on to the next topic of discussion, DeLauro angrily shuffled her papers around while repeating, 'Unbelievable. Unbelievable'. The discussion then moved to the department's plans to improve the healthiness of school lunches for children. Kennedy began calmly describing updated federal nutrition guidelines that will tell people to 'eat whole food', before getting visibly animated. 'I've been touring these Head Start facilities, and everything they eat is in a package. It's loaded with sugar and with chemicals,' he told Rep John Moolenaar of Michigan. 'We're poisoning this generation… the poorest kids in our country, and we're starting them out with this count against them.' Head Start, a federal early education program for low-income families with kids under 5, faces elimination under Trump's latest budget proposal, which would cut school funding for over 500,000 pregnant women, babies, and children. 'If anybody thinks that we did gold standard medicine in this country from these institutions, look at our children! They're the sickest children in the world,' Kennedy exclaimed. Kennedy then turned to DeLauro, who has authored legislation, written to Congress, worked with advocacy groups and pressured the industry to remove dyes and additives from food for decades. 'Congresswoman DeLauro, you say you've worked for 20 years on getting food dye out,' RFK said. 'Give me credit! I got it out in 100 days.' In April, RFK and fellow federal health officials announced they had come to 'an understanding' with food manufacturers on a proposal to phase out the use of Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, and Green 3 by the end of 2026, and begin using natural alternatives. Foods still contain dyes and additives. 'Let's work together and do something that we all believe in, which is to have healthy kids in our country for God's sake,' RFK said.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump to sign resolutions nixing California's EV rules, sources
June 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump will sign three resolutions on Thursday approved by lawmakers barring California's electric vehicle sales mandates and diesel engine rules, auto industry and House aides told Reuters. Trump is signing resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to bar California's landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, which has been adopted by 11 other states and representing a third of the U.S. auto market. Trump will sign one resolution to repeal a waiver granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under former Democratic President Joe Biden in December, allowing California to mandate that at least 80% of vehicles be electric vehicles by 2035. The White House declined to comment. The White House invited numerous auto industry officials to attend the signing on Thursday, sources said. Trump will also sign a resolution approved by Congress to rescind the EPA's 2023 approval of California's plans to require a rising number of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks, and another resolution on California's low-NOx, or low-nitrogen oxide, regulation for heavy-duty highway and off-road vehicles and engines. The signing is a win for General Motors (GM.N), opens new tab, Toyota (7203.T), opens new tab, auto dealers and other automakers that heavily lobbied against the rules, and a blow to California and environmental groups that say the requirements are essential to ensuring cleaner vehicles and cutting pollution. California announced a plan in 2020 to require that by 2035 at least 80% of new cars sold be electric and up to 20% plug-in hybrid models. California Governor Gavin Newsom has vowed to challenge the repeals in court, saying the action by Congress is illegal and would cost California taxpayers an estimated $45 billion in additional health care costs. Since 1970, California has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing GM, Toyota, Volkswagen ( opens new tab Hyundai ( opens new tab Stellantis ( opens new tab and others, previously praised the repeal. "The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable," the group's CEO, John Bozzella, said. "In reality, meeting the mandates would require diverting finite capital from the EV transition to purchase compliance credits from Tesla." These are the latest actions in recent months taking aim at electric vehicles. A separate bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May would end a $7,500 tax credit for new EVs, impose a new $250 annual fee on EVs for road repair costs and repeal vehicle emissions rules designed to prod automakers into building more EVs. It would also phase out EV battery production tax credits in 2028.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
US tariff turmoil makes Spain's flagship foods seek other markets
It's lunchtime in a bar in the southern Spanish city of Seville. The kitchen is humming with activity, and behind the bar a member of staff pours cold beer from a tap into a another uses a carving knife to cut slices from a large leg of jamón ibérico, or Iberian ham, placing each one on a plate, to be served as an are few more Spanish scenes. And there are few more Spanish products than jamón ibérico, whose unique salty flavour is renowned across the world, and part of a national cured ham industry worth nearly €750m ($850m; £630m) each year in he watches the jamón being carved, Jaime Fernández, international commercial director for the Grupo Osborne, which produces wine, sherry and the renowned Cinco Jotas brand of ham, describes it as a "flagship" national foodstuff."It's one of the most iconic gastronomic products from Spain," he says, pointing out how the pigs used to make the ham are reared in the wild and fed on acorns. "It represents our tradition, our culture, our essence." But jamón ibérico, like products across Spain and the rest of Europe, is facing the threat of trade tariffs imposed by US President Donald was no tariff on Spanish ham exports to the US until April of this year, when a 20% charge on all European imports was suddenly introduced, dropping to 10% pending in May Trump unsettled European exporters again when he said that the tariff for all EU goods could rise as high as 50% if trade talks with Brussels do not come to a successful agreement. The current deadline for this is 9 July."The United States is one of our top, priority markets," says Mr Fernández. "The uncertainty is there, and it complicates our medium-and long-term planning, investments and commercial development."The tariffs, he adds, "pose a threat to our industry." Spain's overall economy is in rude health. The IMF has forecast growth this year of 2.5% – much higher than the other main EU economies – and unemployment is at a 17-year the tariff issue comes as a blow for the country's pork industry, which represents more than 400,000 direct and indirect jobs, and is Europe's for cured ham in the US has grown substantially in recent years, and it has become the biggest importer of Spanish ham outside the the Spanish industry now faces the prospect of having to raise retail prices for US consumers and therefore losing competitivity to local products, or those not subject to the same tariffs. Spain's olive oil sector is in a similar quandary. The world's biggest producer of olive oil, Spain had set its sights on the US as a burgeoning market whose growth was driven by growing awareness of the health benefits of the the the tariff turmoil comes just as Spanish producers and exporters have recovered from a drought that slashed harvests in the south of the country, and sent prices temporarily US represents half of world olive oil consumption outside the is also the country whose imports of the foodstuff from Spain have grown the most in recent years, increasing from approximately 300,000 tonnes per year a decade ago to around 430,000 tonnes, says Rafael Pico Lapuente, director general of the Spanish association of olive oil exporters (ASOLIVA).Much will depend, he says, on the final tariff set for the EU."If there is a 10% tariff which is permanent, without differentiating between countries of origin, it's not going to create a distortion on the international market," says Mr Pico explains that American consumers might have to absorb the extra cost. And although local US producers of olive oil or similar products would gain a competitive edge, their output is small enough for it not to concern the likes of he says it would be "a different story" if Trump introduced higher tariffs for the EU than for competitor olive oil countries outside the bloc – such as Turkey, the world's second-largest producer, or Tunisia, an emerging grower. That scenario, he says, would have a major impact on the world market and Spanish producers. But variations in tariffs between countries or trade blocs would also lead to a certain amount rule-bending and even chaos, according to Javier Díaz-Giménez, a professor of economics at the IESE business school in Madrid. He suggests two of Spain's direct neighbours as a hypothetical example."If Spain has a 20% tariff and Morocco and Andorra have a 10% tariff, all the Spanish products that can go through Morocco or Andorra… will do so."He adds: "They will be first exported to Morocco and Andorra and from there re-exported to the United States with a 10% tariff."And it's going to be really hard to make sure that these olives came from Andorra proper and not from Spain. Is Trump going to do something about that?" For now, Spanish producers and exporters must hold their breath as EU negotiations take place with Washington. For Mr Pico Lapuente, a big cause of concern is the influence – or as he sees it, lack of influence – his sector wields within the European trade bloc."The negotiations representing the EU's 27 countries are carried out by Brussels," he says. "In these negotiations, industrial products have a much bigger influence than food."I wouldn't like it if, in this negotiation, food products like olive oil were used as mere bargaining chips in order to get a better deal for Europe's industrial products. That worries me. And I hope it doesn't happen."A spokesperson for the European Commission told the BBC that in negotiations with the US it will act "in defence of European interests, protecting its workers, consumers and its industries".Jaime Fernández, of the Grupo Osborne, believes his industry could live with the 10% tariff that is currently in place without suffering too much a 20% charge, he says would cause the industry "to reconsider how to accelerate growth in some other markets, which would eventually lead to the relocation of resources from the US".He says his company is already looking at alternative markets in which to invest, such as China, or proven European ham consumers such as France, Italy and Díaz-Giménez says that is the logical response to the current uncertainty."If I was the CEO of any company with a high exposure to the United States… I would have sent my entire sales team to find other markets," he says."And by now, they would have found them. There would be plan Bs and plan Cs, to make sure that we have reduced this exposure to the US."
