Freedom? Not when pensions are this slow...

FOLLOWING a fall-out with my financial adviser earlier this year – a human rather than a ‘robo’ version I hasten to add – I decided to transfer my investment portfolio to a friendlier home.

The Isa transfer went smoothly but for some unexplained reason the pension (a self-invested personal pension) took forever and an age to move across. In fact, much to my frustration, it took a shade under the six months statutory limit (funny that, eh).

In a world where most money transfers are now conducted electronically, it simply wasn’t good enough. And, of course, it meant my investments were still earning my ex-adviser a fee when I wasn’t getting any advice and I desperately wanted someone else to manage them.

I am not the only person to be frustrated by such pension delays. Hargreaves Lansdown, a major Sipp provider, has been busy gathering evidence on this issue. It loses out from delays because it doesn’t get its hands on new clients’ money as quickly as it should.

It says transfers are taking anything between four and 53 days to effect. Hargreaves now wants the six months statutory limit reduced to a month and will say so in its evidence to the Treasury consultation paper on pension transfers and exit charges.

In a financial industry where banks must complete current account switches within seven working days, and switching energy supply should take no longer than 17 days, it’s not asking too much for all pension transfers to be completed within a month.

Especially when we are living in a new world of pension freedom.

THE latest statistics from PricewaterhouseCoopers on the health of Britain’s high streets make for sobering reading.

Despite a strong domestic economy, inflation-busting pay increases and unemployment at a seven-year low, 14 stores a day are still shutting across the country.

According to PwC retail specialist Mike Jervis, the continued rash of closures reflects a mix of painful regulation (hurting, in particular, pay-day loan and cheque-cashing shops) and the continued ‘tug of war’ between ‘clicks and bricks’.

While no one should shed a tear over the demise of the high street money sharks – 20 per cent of them disappeared in the first half of this year – it’s sad to see PwC’s figures confirm the continued decline of the bank branch whose numbers reduced by 2.5 per cent.

The Campaign for Community Banking Services, backed by a number of worthy charities, has long argued for banks to club together and provide shared banking facilities rather than leave vibrant communities bankless. Its own data, released on its website last week without any fanfare, paints a more depressing picture than that portrayed by PwC.

It says banks are on course to have shut at least 650 branches this year. To put this into context, 500 were closed last year and 222 in 2013. More than 1,500 communities, it says, no longer have a bank in situ, leaving many small business owners with no choice but to travel to bank their takings.

Only Metro Bank, which will open its 38th branch (a drivethrough store) this Friday in Southall, West London, is bucking this closure trend.

What is galling about the current spate of closures is that many are happening in thriving market towns. The closing of the last bank can have a cataclysmic impact on the rest of the high street, resulting in lower turnover and shop closures. Shared branches are a common sense solution to the decline of the one-trick bank branch. But when did banks ever do anything that smacked of common sense?

THE clock is ticking for savers who have more than £75,000 squirrelled away in an account with a bank or building society.

From January, any savings above £75,000 with an individual bank will no longer be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the event (perish the thought) of a banking failure. Currently, the safety limit is £85,000 but it is being cut to satisfy jobsworths in Europe.

Although anecdotal evidence from Yorkshire Building Society suggests many savers are trimming back savings with individual institutions to fall within the new £75,000 limit, a minority aren’t.

Money expert Sarah Pennells, founder of website SavvyWoman, says some banks and building societies are not helping matters by sending out confusing messages about the change.

Some say the safety net is already set at £75,000 when it isn’t – while others are not spelling out the crucial fact that their safety limit applies across all their savings brands.

More clarity please.

Banks must now complete current account switches for customers in less than a week