Flummoxed by financial jargon? Send us your examples

Obfuscation might be a more accurate pretentious word to use. However, in support of plain English, why not use derivatives of bewilder, mystify, puzzle, perplex, baffle, bemuse, befuddle.

Couldn’t agree more, and organisations guilty of this often increase our irritation by writing their T&C in dense ‘legalese’ which is almost impossible to follow. I have sometimes felt like writing to a company to suggest that if they wrote their conditions in Norwegian or Icelandic they would probably make just as much sense to ordinary punters. Banks are definitely the worst.

I have just received a policy for house insurance which consisted of over 15 pages [I lost count!]. EIGHT pages were T&C in 4pt text. This is ridiculous. I am going to ask for a copy in at least 16 point as I am in my 80s and can’t see the letters let alone read them! I have no idea whether obfuscation is rampant or not but I have my ideas on that!

I have long thought that Which? as a service to subscribers, or possibly to society, should actually work on a database of T&C’s.

This could be a translation into English as she is spoke or examples of the intent as it might apply. There could be a marking for its clarity in general, suitability, and warnings on what is not covered or an abuse.

Obviously this is not a trivial exercise but I am quite happy that it could be accomplished with the right amount of carrot and stick with the insurers. Also as the Indian venture is over there is around £3m in the kitty for Which? to spend.

There only so many things that can apply to insurance policies as T&C’s. Furthermore it may be possible and sensible to standardise T&C’s. What could be nicer than a Which? seal of approval that the T&C’s for your particular insurer are not onerous together .

I used to deal with people daily on their finances, and planning for the longer term is a great stretch for many and I am filled with forebodings how this will pan out.

You may have noticed that the head of the Citizens Advice Bureau Gillian Guy has recieved a CBE in the New Year Honours list. Given her ready agreement that CAB would explain the pension ramifications despite her staff being overwhelmed with work and untrained for this type of advice I am very disheartened and think this will not do very much for her 21500 volunteers.

Apparently when the announcement was made that CAB would be involved ….

” The criticism was leveled at Ms Guy for remarks she made when it was announced that Citizens Advice had been appointed to provide face-to-face pension advice to those affected by the changes. She is quoted as saying that ‘People who have diligently saved year after year towards their retirement deserve to choose how to make the most of their pension pot’ which is on the face of it an endorsement of government policy. So, does the [Private] Eye have a point?

Whether or not you agree with the new pension rules the Eye’s description of CAB volunteers in the article as ‘well-meaning but amateur’ is grossly misleading. They help thousands of people every year with complex benefits, debt, housing, consumer and a host of other problems.
Citizens Advice Waverley like every other bureau in the country is an independent charity affiliated to the central organisation headed by Gillian Guy. If each bureau is to be able to continue to provide its local community with information and advice in the face of ever-increasing demands it will require continued guidance and support from Citizens Advice nationally and while this requires leadership it cannot be exercised unilaterally.

Ms Guy and her team will therefore doubtless ensure that every bureau will be consulted regarding any additional training and resources necessary to deliver personal pensions advice. Guidance will also be required on how to avoid recommending financial products to clients so that they can continue to be confident the advice they receive is independent – commercially if not politically.

Over to you Ms Guy”

That’s a very good point you make DT. Pensioners with savings over £23,250 are not entitled to free home care, so the Government stands to gain from anyone contemplating taking a lump sum exceeding that amount from their pension fund when they would be forced into a situation whereby they would have to finance their own home care. A smart move by George O.

I know I surprised myself when I thought of the devious cleverness of it! : )

The best fact sheet I have found so far regarding assessing your eligibility for financial support for home care (and care home) is
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Factsheets/FS10_Paying_for_permanent_residential_care_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true

I could not find, however, how pension funds are treated. It would seem the income is taken into account (50% if a spouse is also supported) but is the pension pot (e.g. a SIPP) treated as savings? I raise this as the impending changes will allow you to withdraw up to 100% (less tax) in a lump sum. Does anyone know?

Ever since I read that the CABx are going to be given the role of helping people understand their options under the new freedom to cash-in your pension pot, I have been wondering how on earth they were going to be able to do it adequately and consistently across the country, as I know how stretched they are at present with inadequate offices, teams of willing but hard-pressed volunteers, and a lengthening queue of clients. I assumed the government was going to give them a grant to enable the employment of additional experts [are there such people just waiting for the call?] but I have seen no evidence of this. Another concern I have is that people might expect to get ‘advice’ from an advice bureau whereas the CABx or their agents might not be authorised to give ‘advice’ in its financial context. And it is genuine advice, guidance and support that people will need – not just fact sheets and lists of website links. Tipping out your pension pot is one of the most significant things a person could do; like making a will, you need to be of sound mind and judgment because the consequences are potentially formidable and irreversible. The tax liabilities are the easy bit to explain; the long-term implications require a very detailed fact-find and deep consideration that I wouldn’t queue up in an advice bureau to explore.

There is no such thing as a bad time to be a financial advisor. Since by the time everybody realises they have been sold yet another pup they have long flown off to their well feathered nests (Apologies for the mixed metaphors)

Whenever I have received them I have believed they are a scam. If you wish to play along do so but DO not provide bank account details or pay any money or a telephone number. And scammers can be exceedingly persuasive. I had an ex-bank friend pay over £18,000.

In theory a dormant company may be a cheap way to gain a shell but when it involves forign companies it is very unlikely to be honest.

Kingsoft Industries appears highly unlikely given its Brazilian base and US sub-office. It appears to link to another Kingsoft of China and I doubt there is a real commercial link between them.

Policies seem to be peppered with those contingency exclusions that you hope are just dormant but can be resurrected and invoked against you. I would regard it as void for uncertainty. Atleast you actually received some documents – most insurers only provide an on-line policy document which is usually not formatted for printing-off as a manageable document, but which [according to clause seventy-four] you have to carry with you at all times while abroad.