The requirement to take financial advice for certain transactions has already been on a list of common complaints received from the Financial Ombudsman Service and I would guess this is related to DB transfers.

In essence, if you believe in the principle of pension freedoms and accept that some people might spend their pension fund rather than provide a lifetime income, then why differentiate between the DC and DB regimes?

I do think we ought to reconsider the framework for advice on DB transfers, starting with the FCA presumption, investigating the adviser liability issue, revising the TVAS assumptions and even enforcing the provision that ‘insistent clients’ have received advice not to transfer and that any transaction afterwards cannot lead to liability on the adviser.

I know it all sounds a bit idealistic but an objective pension transfer regime would assist all involved and, whether or not we believe in the laissez-faire approach of pension freedoms, it should be a level playing field for all.

Mike Morrison is head of platform technical at AJ Bell