JEFF PRESTRIDGE: Why is it so difficult to get our pensions in one place?
It's one of the reasons more than 40 per cent of working age people are not saving enough for retirement.
Many just don't understand the myriad rules governing pension contributions, permitted tax breaks and how funds at retirement can be turned into hard cash.
As a result, they desist from long-term saving when they should be embracing it.
This complexity extends to when people attempt to put their pension affairs in good order.
Long gone are the days when people retired after working all their life for one employer. Now, unlike our parents who had one works pension to see them through retirement, we have a mishmash of pensions – some good, others not fit for purpose. Some we may have forgotten about or struggle to track down.
Research by financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown shows more than one in five people have lost track of pensions accumulated over a lifetime of work.
To address this, consumer groups have repeatedly called for the setting up of an online dashboard, allowing people to see in one place key details on all of the pension plans they have accumulated over their working life.
Such a dashboard would be a game-changer, allowing people to piece together their pension jigsaw – and enable them to make better choices when saving and at the point of retirement.
Yet despite promises by previous governments to get it off the ground, it has yet to see the light of day. Although a quango called the Pensions Dashboards Programme has been tasked with delivering the scheme, the project trundles on at a snail's pace.
Pensions minister Emma Reynolds says the Government is committed to getting a dashboard over the line. But I doubt it will be fully operational before the next General Election in 2029.
In light of such slow progress, Labour should listen to those calling for new rules governing pension switches.
Pension switching and consolidation of plans makes great sense for many savers, giving them greater control over their long-term finances and the opportunity to benefit from lower fund fees.
It's not for everyone. Some older pensions can include valuable benefits that would be lost if transferred to another provider. Yet overall, it is good for consumers and should be hiccup-free.
Sadly, it isn't. Many providers make life difficult for want-away customers by dragging out transfers over many weeks and sometimes months. Scandalous.
PensionBee, a relatively new pension kid on the block, wants the Government to introduce a ten-day pension switching guarantee, backed by law.
It would be similar to the seven-day current account switching service (CASS) launched 12 years ago to stop banks dilly-dallying on account transfer requests. CASS's data indicates that of the 11.9 million current account switches completed since 2013, 99.6 per cent have been within the required seven working days.
PensionBee's Lisa Picardo says pension switching delays 'have real opportunity costs – hampering engagement, costing people real money, limiting their choices and undermining trust in the whole pensions system'.
To prompt change, PensionBee has set up a petition calling for 'faster, electronic pension transfers'. Bafflingly, there's no specific mention of the ten-day switching guarantee, nor the compensation savers should (must) get if the guarantee is breached.
And the petition's title – 'legislate to mandate offer of electronic pension transfers and higher standards' – reads like it has been dreamt up by an actuary who has spent too much time immersed in the complexities of pensions.
I can only assume there is method in the madness. As I said at the start, nothing is straightforward when it comes to pensions. Find the petition at petition.parliament.uk/petitions/731994.
Cashless tills have invaded our shops
Paying for goods with cash at a supermarket should be a given. But many stores are rapidly turning invasive self-checkout services into near cashless zones. Think 1963 horror film The Day Of The Triffids, about an invasion of carnivorous plants.
For example, at Marks & Spencer's store at London Paddington (the railway station I commute into and from five days a week), there are only a handful among the phalanx of self-checkout terminals that now accept cash.
Debra Morrison, chief executive of charity CLASP, based in my home town of Wokingham in Berkshire, is a passionate advocate for cash.
CLASP provides invaluable support to people with learning difficulties, encouraging them to express themselves, participate in a wide range of events, and live more independently. Its work is enlightening.
Debra says cash is vital for most CLASP members who need to budget carefully and don't use credit and debit cards. It is also key for the elderly and others who eschew other payment methods.
Debra is backing an petition – find it online at chng.it/Q8x5CTnCCZ – calling for an end to the discrimination of cash users at self-service checkouts.
Financial inclusion is an imperative. I urge you to sign the petition.
Shame on Barclays for axeing ANOTHER service
I hadn't heard of Barclays' 'sterling home service' until a neighbour of my partner mentioned it a few days ago. The service, introduced during the 2020 lockdown, enables people to order cash and have it delivered to their home rather than trundle off in search of a cash machine or a Barclays branch still open (good luck there).
It has been a godsend for Edna who was 90 a couple of weeks ago and is not as mobile as she once was. It has enabled her to pay cash for at-home care, food deliveries and other needs besides.
Sadly for Edna and other elderly people, Barclays is withdrawing the service on October 9.
It says it was only meant to be temporary – and given it is now only used by a 'very small number of customers' (its words, not mine), it must be given the chop.
The bank says the Ednas of this world can still get cash in other ways: via an ATM, getting cashback at a retailer or by asking for an 'authorised user' to be added to their account who can get cash out for them.
Interestingly, it didn't mention the other option: withdrawing cash over the counter at a local Barclays branch. I draw two conclusions from this.
Either Barclays feels it has shut so many branches (1,236 since 2015) that such an option is not worth mentioning. In Edna's case, the local Barclays in Wokingham, Berkshire, shut two years ago – and is now an ugly, empty shell. Or, that the days of permitted big cash withdrawals over the counter at Barclays' branches are drawing to an end.
PS: There is worrying evidence that banks and retailers are turning their backs on cheques. If you have had difficulties banking a cheque or making a payment by cheque, email me at jeff.prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Manchester United's bold new stadium plans already delayed by dispute with freight train company
Manchester United 's bold plans to build a new 100,000-seater stadium beside replace Old Trafford have already hit a major hindrance. Sir Jim Ratcliffe unveiled drawings earlier this year for a new venue to replace the tired existing ground, which has been poorly maintained under the Glazer family's ownership. The plans included major new housing, leisure and retail space around the ground to transform the area into an attractive destination that offers visitors more than just football. United has proposed building the £2bn stadium themselves. The futuristic design – by celebrated architest Sir Norman Foster 's firm Foster + Partners – is inspired by the Red Devils Trident, and is dominated by three huge spindles or masts in a trident formation, giving the project the impression of something of a circus tent. But the club are looking for both local government and Trafford Council to support the wider scheme. However, progress has already halted as the club negotiates with local landowner Freightliner, which owns a train terminal close to Old Trafford. United value the land at £40-50m but Freightliner has demanded £400m and talks are at an impasse, according to the Guardian. United remain confident the ambitious timescale of completing the project within five to six years can be met, with sights set on hosting the Women's World Cup final in 2035 when the tournament is hosted on the British Isles. A taskforce convened by Ratcliffe, chaired by Lord Sebastian Coe, estimated the regeneration project could bring an extra £7.3bn to the British economy and create 92,000 jobs. Chief executive Omar Berrada said at the time: 'Our long-term objective as a club is to have the world's best football team playing in the world's best stadium', with Old Trafford - which has been United's home since 1909 - deemed to have 'fallen behind', in Ratcliffe's words. "I think we may well finish up with the most iconic football stadium in the world," the billionaire added. Two of the three masts will reach 150m in height, with the tallest - at the apex of the trident - 200m, significantly taller than the tallest building in Manchester, the 169m Beetham Tower, and towering over Wembley's 135m mast. The plan for the masts is for them to be visible for up to 37.4km - so residents of parts of Cheshire, the Peak District, and even the outskirts of Liverpool will be able to see at least some of the stadium. Alongside the stadium will be a huge plaza, "twice the size of Trafalgar Square" according to the architects, with the material connecting the masts extending to cover this outside space. Foster has said the stadium will take five years to build, and will be a 'prefabrication' built elsewhere and transported down the Manchester Ship Canal in 160 component pieces. Ratcliffe has not stated when building work to begin, but said: 'It depends how quickly the government get going with their regeneration. I think they want to get going quite quickly. I assume that will go well. The thing that allows us to do that is the Manchester Ship Canal, that halves the time.' The government has already given its backing to the project.
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Vandalising Wes Streeting's office is not protest, it is violent criminal intimidation
It is a sight that is becoming more common as social justice warriors abandon old-fashioned ideas of legal protest: a prominent MP turns up for work at his constituency office only to find the windows smashed and offensive graffiti painted across the front of the building. The clean-up costs will be met by the tax-payer but the fear and intimidation that the attack was intended to generate will be felt most keenly by vulnerable staff members working in Wes Streeting's Ilford North headquarters, and even by the health secretary's constituents. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Trans Bash Back, a 'trans-led direct action project'. Sharing an image of the front of the office shortly after it had been vandalised, they wrote on social media: 'Don't want action? Don't kill kids.' That sinister threat was even echoed by a Scottish Green candidate standing at next year's Holyrood elections. Iris Duane took to Twitter in the aftermath of the attack to write: 'If you don't want 'child killer' sprayed onto your office, have you considered not killing children?' The accusation of infanticide comes from Streeting's acceptance of the recommendations of the extensive and authoritative Cass review of health care for adolescents questioning their gender identity, which led to a ban on new patients under 18 being prescribed puberty blockers. It's natural that people who feel strongly about this issue or the other two topics in the holy trinity of social justice causes – Palestine and climate change – should want to vent their fury at politicians who disagree with them. But the modern era has spawned a new type of activist who sees flagrant breaches of the law, including criminal damage, as an entirely legitimate form of protest. This seems to be based on a belief that their cause is special, even uniquely virtuous, and that because the injustice felt by the protesters when they don't get their own way is felt so intensely, the range of 'remedies' open to them is broadened beyond the limits of the law. Even when protesters are prosecuted and jailed, there is outrage from these same groups who seem to believe that violence, provided it is perpetrated for the 'right' cause, must be exempt from all consequences. Even our national broadcaster is partly culpable for encouraging, by its inaction, such dangerous exceptionalism. The attack on Streeting's office is but the latest incident by activists taking out their frustrations and sense of entitlement on the constituency bases of MPs who refuse to vote the way they demand. In November 2023, pro-Palestinian activists daubed Labour MP Jo Stevens's Cardiff office with red paint after she abstained on a parliamentary vote on Gaza. A year earlier former Tory MP Peter Bone's constituency office in Wellingborough was similarly vandalised, apparently in protest at recent sleaze allegations against his party. And earlier this year, the Shrewsbury MP Julia Buckley, was forced to abandon her constituency office after it was targeted three times in as many weeks. These are all egregious attacks on our democratic process and democratic norms. And each of them was adequately covered on the BBC News website. But as of today, no word on the latest attack on Streeting's office has been reported by the BBC. Which is deeply odd, since the corporation even has a special designated section of its vast website devoted to trans issues, replete with preferred pronouns and tales of 'stunning and brave' gender transitions. And yet, when the darker side of trans activism is revealed in all its shoddy and unpleasant details, when public sector employees live in fear that the violence perpetrated on buildings will be targeted at them next, the BBC suddenly has nothing to say, and will not even report the facts. In an era where two MPs in the last decade have been murdered by violent extremists, the need to protect our elected representatives – and their staff – from all forms of violence and intimidation has never been more urgent. But such protection is not nearly enough. The media must be made to understand that for all the fears of a growth in the threat of the political 'far Right', fascism comes from both sides of the political spectrum, and so does the accompanying violence. Forcing others, by violence or intimidation, to parrot your own political opinions is a fundamental aspect of fascism. Those who cross the line separating legal from illegal protest demean the democratic process because they have demonstrated that they themselves believe it no longer has any value for them. Only by exposing every incident of vandalism, wanton damage, threatening behaviour or literal violence, whatever the motives of the perpetrators, can the foundations of civilisation be prevented from crumbling.
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves acknowledges voter disappointment amid fresh call for wealth tax
Chancellor Rachel Reeves says that Labour must deliver change to earn victory in the next election, acknowledging that some voters are disappointed with the party's progress. She said she is also 'impatient for change' but stressed that ministers cannot implement everything at once, highlighting her responsibility for financial prudence. These remarks coincide with growing public concern over Sir Keir Starmer 's government, whose approval rating recently reached an all-time low. Ms Reeves defended the government's tax policy, saying it has found the right balance despite the challenge of addressing public finance deficits. The discussion follows former Labour shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds' call for a wealth tax, as recent polling indicates a significant perception of chaos within Sir Keir's administration.
