Another Auto-Enrolment, IFA's & Middleware Question

Another Auto-Enrolment, IFA's & Middleware...

Didn't find your answer?

So sorry to ask another AE question but I really do need to start making some decisions on how our payroll Department is going to handle AE going forward.

I thought I had it all sorted and was putting some plans together but our IFA has just thrown a complete spanner in the works!

We are a firm of accountants and process approx. 350 client payrolls, a mixture of monthly, weekly and director only.

My initial research had led us to go down the path of Moneysoft payroll (moving away from Sage in April 2015) and Now:Pensions with help and advice on the setup and any issues going forward from our IFA. Our IFA was also going to be involved in meeting with the employees of our larger clients.

Our IFA informed us yesterday that due to time constraints he has decided to step back from AE and instead adopt an outsourced consultative approach for AE through a middleware company. Obviously there is quite a hefty charge for this middleware as they basically take over the whole AE process. We would be using a AE system called Staffcare who use one pension provider, Scottish Widows.

Our IFA has said that he believes this middleware company will give us the specialist consultancy cover we need.

So my question is............

Why would we need specialist middleware cover at a big cost when Now:Pensions provide all comms at no cost (apart from the first initial letter to all workers at staging time)?

I know that Moneysoft can assess employees each pay period and a csv file can be created and uploaded into Now:Pensions and am aware that at the moment the download cannot be done from Now:Pensions to Moneysoft but I really don't see this as being too much of a problem. I also spoke with Moneysoft last week and they advised that they will be doing some more work on the AE side of things in the future and I believe that downloading from Now:Pensions will probably come along in time.

I have had a meeting with one of the partners this morning and we are both of the same view that we stick with the original plan of Moneysoft and Now:Pensions but obviously without the advice and on-going help from our IFA which is probably the bit that worries me.

Does anyone have any views they could share please?

This is such a big decision for accountants and I am very aware that getting it wrong could have huge implications for us.

Replies (48)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Simon Leyland
08th Oct 2014 12:23

Call
Please call me 07827 350771, promise not to 'sell' you anything! You're not alone, we're helping plenty of people in your position. Easier to discuss than type out a long reply. If appropriate then happy to post later.
Simon

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
08th Oct 2014 13:45

I dont understand

Sorry if I am missing something here, but I dont understand why you say you are going with NOW Pensions and moneysoft.

Surely it is not up to you to decide which pension provider the employer goes with, that is the employers choice.  and if they have a pension with another provider you need to be sure that you can handle that too.

Decent software and training your staff should be all you need.

A company like Iris for example claim that their software does it all, so why bother with middleware?  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Kazmc
08th Oct 2014 14:05

@Simon Leyland

Thankyou very much, i will try to give you a call later on today or tomorrow sometime if that is ok?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Kazmc
08th Oct 2014 14:09

@NH

We have taken the decision to 'offer' our AE services to clients, informing them that we will be using Now:Pensions and they then have the option to use us or if they do not wish to use Now:Pensions then that is, of course, their decision but they will need to admin AE themselves.

We are not promoting Now:Pensions as such, just offering that particular service if our clients wish to use it.

Does anyone see any problem with this?

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
08th Oct 2014 14:23

still dont understand why

apart from the obvious fact that you will most probably be viewed offering pension advice by telling your clients that you are using NOW (how will they not see that as an endorsement from you?), I still dont see why you would limit yourselves to one provider, just get software that handles at least the 3 cheap options NEST, Peoples and NOW.

my view is that if you tell your clients to do it themselves, a) they will mess it up and b) they will look for a new payroll bureau 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By leicsred
08th Oct 2014 14:35

What software

Hi

 

Which software do you know that handles all 3 and the correspondence? I have watched the IRIS webinar on the website and that only mentions covering NEST.

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
08th Oct 2014 14:41

off the top of my head

Iris AE Suite covers Now, Peoples, Scot Widows, Aviva and Friends Life and you can bet they will start covering a lot more in the next year.

Brightpay say they do NEST, NOW, Peoples and Scot Widows

I think Qtac do them all too.

I am sure there are others

Thanks (1)
Replying to Peteralco:
avatar
By Simon Leyland
08th Oct 2014 14:57

Hub solution

May I be so bold as to suggest that æComply from LEBC is a truly agnostic ‘hub’ solution (we don’t like the phrase ‘middleware’).

It will deal with any payroll software and any pension provider. Indeed, right now it offers a straight through process to at least one provider and we are working on others.

Yes, not suitable for all but for those payroll people who don’t wish to shell out upfront or simply don’t trust what’s in front of them, then maybe worth a look.

As it is a ‘hub’, the payroll bureau/accountant/bookkeeper uses it themselves. LEBC provide all the training, marketing support etc etc ie we help you 'build a business within your business'..  

Apologies for the sales pitch. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By leicsred
08th Oct 2014 15:32

Simon

As an idea - how much does your solution cost per month - is it per client or a set fee to us for a number of employees across numerous companies?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Duncan_Reeves
08th Oct 2014 16:06

Having staged 50+ companies as an advisor my personal view would be why would you not let payroll do the heavy lifting as long as the solution is cost effective vs.1. stop payroll mid flow when you have the raw payroll data. 2. Move it to middleware (in a format they accept) sounds simple but this is not always the case. 3. Let the middleware run it AE processes this could be member categorisation, calculate premiums and send communications etc. there could be more there / less than that. 4. Take that data and pass pack to payroll in a format it will accept (again to do not assume this is a simple task). 5. Get payroll to add these deductions and complete standard payroll processes. 6. Take pensions data that has been generated by middleware and upload to pension provider (again do not assume that is a simple task). 7. Clarify what the opt in / opt out process will be 8. There is more but you get my drift the payroll / pension combination is not perfect you still need to map out who does what by when. I can only think of two good reasons why you would use middleware; 1. Your payroll does not have the functionality or it cannot be upgraded in a cost effective manner. 2. You have other flexible benefits that you are looking to manage for a workforce. Of more concern to me is the adviser community stepping away from auto enrolment (factoring in a lot of business decided not to get involved in the first place) AE needs a collegial approach with all the key stakeholders working together. For what its worth middleware achieves two things it builds an AE island (with lots of great things happening) but then as a business you need to think about how you are going to get your clients to and from said island every time you run payroll (regrettably this may well be you in a rowing boat, rather than a private jet or suspension bridge). Also and this is may be a bit controversial some (not all) advisers have been using middleware and way of charging clients for advice (i.e. middleware cost £1, client charged £2 and adviser keeps £1 for his time. My own view is what I bring to the party is advice I am not a payroll professional or accountant, I know how pensions work and what employers and employees need and want and you can hire my brain for a fixed cost stated in advance to help with those matters, hope that helps.....  P.S. apologies for stream of consciousness and any typo's in advance!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Friendly Pensions
08th Oct 2014 16:17

Friendly Pensions

Hey,

Here at Friendly Pension we have worked a lot with Moneysoft and they have workforce assessment built in as a standard functionality. Although Friendly Pensions and NOW Pensions both handle AE workforce assessment through middleware platforms, we advise clients to do this in payroll and simply let us do the AE Communications. This is the most sensible and user friendly solution for a bureau as it limits the amount of data transfer between systems.

From your comments it seems that the expensive middleware solution is supported by Creative Auto-Enrolment, which will justify their large fees based on their support line.

Friendly Pensions do not charge for our Payroll Agent Pension Portal, and all payroll administrators are allocated an on-boarding agent to assist with any teething problems, or any technical questions you may have.

From our experience, payroll practitioner's expertise are best placed to handle Auto-Enrolment.

As Friendly Pensions provide our middleware functionality for free, I hope our suggestions seem as objective as possible.

Please feel free to give me a call.....07886340352...

Arnie Ayton

Thanks (1)
By coops456
08th Oct 2014 16:25

Reason 1 is the key here. You cannot assume that the payroll software is capable of the heavy lifting you mention!

We love Moneysoft and don't want to move from it. It does the assessment, we enter the percentage deduction and we can then output a file for upload to the pension provider.

The missing bit that middleware/a hub solution can provide is the comms. Moneysoft is excellent at what it does - pure payroll - and I don't believe the developers have any intention of producing a bolt-on module for AE communications etc.

So a bureau like ourselves has to decide whether to a) tell our clients, "the comms are up to you", or b) create a full service offering, which to be profitable would mean looking at the middleware options.

My recollection from a recent webinar is aeComply costs £1 per employee per month - no doubt Simon will correct me if I'm mistaken!

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Simon Leyland
09th Oct 2014 06:15

Reply to previous
That's right the basic cost for aeComply is £1 pm per e'ee. For this the bureau gets assessment, compliance, full comms and clear audit trail. We also provide project planning tool to manage all your clients AE requirements, potential 'retrofit' facility as and when required and basic level of support. Of course, there are other 'add ons' depending on what other services are required, including buying a pension off the shelf (bureau can use this service even if they don't use aeComply), implementation support etc.
Correct, it isn't for everybody, but for those really struggling or just plain confused, we're always happy to discuss.
Currently at CIPP conference, so please email if you would like to talk through, [email protected]

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Kazmc
09th Oct 2014 08:27

Now:Pensions

coops456 wrote:

Reason 1 is the key here. You cannot assume that the payroll software is capable of the heavy lifting you mention!

We love Moneysoft and don't want to move from it. It does the assessment, we enter the percentage deduction and we can then output a file for upload to the pension provider.

The missing bit that middleware/a hub solution can provide is the comms. Moneysoft is excellent at what it does - pure payroll - and I don't believe the developers have any intention of producing a bolt-on module for AE communications etc.

So a bureau like ourselves has to decide whether to a) tell our clients, "the comms are up to you", or b) create a full service offering, which to be profitable would mean looking at the middleware options.

My recollection from a recent webinar is aeComply costs £1 per employee per month - no doubt Simon will correct me if I'm mistaken!

But you wouldn't need middleware if you used Now:Pensions (or friendly pensions as we have just been advised above) as they do all the comms (apart from the very first letter to all employees) for free. This is why, as a bureau, we are seriously considering using Moneysoft for the payroll as they support the assessments for free (as opposed to Sage where you have to purchase the add-on at a considerable cost even to do the most basic assessment) and then use Now:Pensions for all the comms.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Duncan_Reeves
08th Oct 2014 19:30

coops

I think we all need to be continually reviewing our propositions to match the changing demographics of stagers. However my response was specific to this scenario and  appreciate that there may be some granular detail I am missing but with clear demarcation I do not see why you not let payroll handle the employee categorisation, calculate and deduct premiums and allow NOW to handle the statutory communications an opt out process both of which I can say categorically Now will do at no additional cost. Oppose to stopping payroll to allow middleware to effectively run an expensive mail merge, sometimes less is more.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Duncan_Reeves
08th Oct 2014 20:11

PS

Clients WILL pay you to manage the above process at a lower cost to them and higher profit margin to you vs. middleware.

 

PPS 1. I am not anti middleware (I have a have stage several companies using mw). 2.  I know the above works as I have staged several of my own clients on this basis. 3. Frankly as long as the employer successfully stages, stays compliant and the journey is relatively painless who cares what combination mw payroll and pension provider they use?

 

 

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Arnold Ayton
08th Oct 2014 23:54

Middleware

Hi Duncan,

I agree with your comments around middleware, and that a employers experience (despite using mw or not) is the overiding factor.

However, for payroll bureaux the situation is entirely different, and the ongoing procedures around data transfer are a material consideration.

Allowing payroll to process the ae assessment and contribution calculation limits the transfer of data between systems to ONCE per pay/reference period. Yet the use of middleware increases this to TWO if not THREE.

If you processed one to five payrolls a month this would not become a problem, however, a standard administrator within a bureau will have to process 40 to 100 payrolls a more months.

Of course, in this circumstance accountants and payroll provides will be committing commercial suicide using middleware to run workforce assessment.

In fact, for a bureau this data transfer must go further to allow payroll providers to process GLOBAL UPLOADS, and process numerous client payrolls within a single upload!

This is the main way Friendly Pensions communicate with the majority of clients via a payroll provider.

Of course, we offer middleware to our users, but I can only objectively suggest its use for AE communications.

Kind regards

Arnie

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Duncan_Reeves
09th Oct 2014 10:06

I am not flogging anthing
Last comment I promise! I am not here to selling anyone's proposition (including my own) and I appreciate a payroll bureau model will be very different business model to mine, I agree that a global upload is important when you run multiple payrolls and forward think pension providers will accommodate this Friendly is a good example, however it is my understanding NOW also have this functionality as well, ultimately this all has to be if the cap fits and you can never have to many good quality solutions, let’s not forget that is ultimately about good member outcomes for employers and their employees.

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Kazmc
09th Oct 2014 10:15

Uploads

Duncan_Reeves wrote:
it is my understanding NOW also have this functionality as well.

I have just finished a conference call with Now:Pensions and you can upload individual company details or indeed in bulk, whichever suits, all within their "Dedicated Microsite" which is basically a bureau option where we login and have access to all our clients details.

Have to say I have been very impressed with Now:Pensions so far.....

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Oct 2014 10:33

MY understanding ...

... from the IRIS World demo's is that IRIS produces reports for all the pension providers, you select from a list and the report is formatted to the respective provider.

It appears also that in IRIS you can have different employees contributions paid to different providers.

IRIS also say if your provider isn't on the dropdown menu they will write a bespoke report for you.

Here are their AE FAQ's

http://www.iris.co.uk/support/other-payroll-and-hr-support-inc-p11d-and-bookkeeping/Automatic-Enrolment/

If it is worrying you you could also look at outsourcing to IRIS an let them run your payrolls, we recently got a quote and were pleasantly surprised at the cost per payslip for everything, including AE comms. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Matthew Parkinson
09th Oct 2014 11:14

Middleware - Why it is necessary.

I have staged circa 86 companies and my understanding of a one size fits all solution is that one does not exist.   (please do correct me if you believe this to be wrong) I have used Staffcare, which does have some pluses, worked with AVIVA on their AME platform, (of which a number of leading providers have white labelled, such as LEBC and JLT).  Johnson Fleming have a super managed service proposition and to me, appear to have a thorough understanding of the market.  They all have their benefits and detriments.

There appears to be to me an immediate desire to obtain the holy grail of one click straight through processing.  This then comes at the detriment of a good member outcome, ultimately restricting the choice of the member to a few default funds just to deal with the compliance of AE.  Would you be using NOW just because it is easy? Are you aware of any other suitable options?  What happens in 2018 when your client/ the company may wish to use AVIVA, Friendly Pensions or A Nother as provider due to the existing providers poor service standards?

For example, (And there are other master Trusts available) Friendly have a great offering, making  a lot of noise in the industry, with a Master Trust (which basically means they will accept anybody) providing a a suitable default together with access access to L&Gs funds for members that wish to engage with their pensions.  This will greatly assist any IFA in tailoring a suitable proposition for individual members. 

Essentially, true middleware will save cost in the long run, as it allows you to keep your compliance separate and makes it easier to (which we suggest is only done upon the recommendation of an adviser) to switch providers if needs be.  It will also say to your clients, "we do not have a preferred pension provider, but we can deal with the compliance of AE"

Unfortunately, and as you have recognised, this all comes at a cost.  We at YES have recognised this, and provide a whole of market approach.  We do not work with one specific middleware provider, we do not work with one specific pension company.  We can blend and tailor a perfect solution for you and your clients using our knowledge and experience.

Hope this helps?

P.s.  Apologies for the grammar or spelling as I am trying to type whilst on the train.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By coops456
09th Oct 2014 11:24

Spot on

Matthew Parkinson wrote:

Essentially, true middleware will save cost in the long run, as it allows you to keep your compliance separate and makes it easier to (which we suggest is only done upon the recommendation of an adviser) to switch providers if needs be.  It will also say to your clients, "we do not have a preferred pension provider, but we can deal with the compliance of AE"

(Emphasis added by me).

I think this is exactly what our clients want to hear.

Thanks (0)
By coops456
09th Oct 2014 11:19

NOW experience

My experience of NOW:Pensions was initially promising (pre-sales is very good) but ultimately disappointing so I don't feel able to recommend them to clients.

This was during May. The website portal was very slow and clunky, and supporting documentation was sparse.

Whenever I rang the helpdesk it was busy. Infuriatingly they keep you on hold for several minutes before just cutting you off; very poor call handling. So I emailed them a straightforward query. 3 weeks later, we received a response which referenced the wrong company!

Our client also had problems trying to get a password reset, and this proved the last straw. The week before they staged, they dropped NOW and went with NEST.

NEST's helpdesk isn't brilliant either, but their portal is clear and responsive. We logon as a bureau and can see all our clients listed. If only they did the comms... :-)

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Kazmc
09th Oct 2014 11:42

Changing Minds?

coops456 wrote:

My experience of NOW:Pensions was initially promising (pre-sales is very good) but ultimately disappointing so I don't feel able to recommend them to clients.

This was during May. The website portal was very slow and clunky, and supporting documentation was sparse.

Whenever I rang the helpdesk it was busy. Infuriatingly they keep you on hold for several minutes before just cutting you off; very poor call handling. So I emailed them a straightforward query. 3 weeks later, we received a response which referenced the wrong company!

Our client also had problems trying to get a password reset, and this proved the last straw. The week before they staged, they dropped NOW and went with NEST.

NEST's helpdesk isn't brilliant either, but their portal is clear and responsive. We logon as a bureau and can see all our clients listed. If only they did the comms... :-)

Many thanks and that is very interesting to read.

I have had a meeting with the partners this morning and have taken on board what has been said on this thread and it has definitely made us think on how we can approach AE. Using Moneysoft and Now:Pensions is a viable option but thinking about things how flexible will that be going forward? A question was asked in the meeting..."what happens if we are approached by a new client but we cannot provide the AE solution they are currently using?" This would, I presume, mean learning to use another pension providers system and having to deal with the comms ourselves or turning new clients away?

I think maybe on reflection we need to look at a full package which can deal with numerous pension providers so are going to have a look at IRIS payroll & their AE suite as we already use the IRIS accounting package. We did look at IRIS payroll before but it was deemed too expensive, however, with the realisation of how big AE is going to become maybe that is not such an overriding factor now?

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By leicsred
09th Oct 2014 11:36

Recommend pension providers

I like the sound of the Iris solution at present as it seems to give the flexibility of changing providers, and a wide range of providers, without having an extra layer of middleware between - but obviously I will need to clarify that with them...

One thing that concerns me is what is the process for clients to decide which pension provider to use, can we give them a list of some of the options available and ask them to chose themselves and consult an IFA. Do we need to run seminars with an IFA to give the options? Or do we just say, look for yourself and let us know?

What can we do and not be seen to be giving advice?

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to pauld:
avatar
By User deleted
09th Oct 2014 12:35

You can give fact ...

leicsred wrote:

I like the sound of the Iris solution at present as it seems to give the flexibility of changing providers, and a wide range of providers, without having an extra layer of middleware between - but obviously I will need to clarify that with them...

One thing that concerns me is what is the process for clients to decide which pension provider to use, can we give them a list of some of the options available and ask them to chose themselves and consult an IFA. Do we need to run seminars with an IFA to give the options? Or do we just say, look for yourself and let us know?

What can we do and not be seen to be giving advice?

 

... buT not opinion.

You will need to say - "it is up to you to decide which provider to use, there are many out there and I know NEST and NOW will cater for you but you will need to check them out yourselves"

If they ask you to explain things from lietature that too is fine.

As long as you don't recommend one you are fine, of course you can mak clients aware of the existence of various providers, but you are best to give them at least two, preferably 3 names.

You can explain who the different schemes work, how they interact with teh payroll eytc. etc. - that is fact, even saying one interacts better than another is fact. After all if you said a Ferari is faster than a Mondeo you would be speaking fact, not recommending one over another.

EDIT - If a client asks if you know an IFA you are allowed to give them a name, obviously you have to let them know if you get a fee or commission for the introduction. I have been saying to my clients, speak to your IFA, if you don't have one let me know and you can speak to one I know - just don't say "recommend" !

Thanks (0)
Replying to pauld:
avatar
By alanchaplin
09th Oct 2014 13:24

Recommend pension providers

www.pensionplaypen.com compares pension providers - your clients can use it and tell you the provider they have chosen or you can use it as an agent on their behalf. In order to provide quotes, many of the providers want details of the potential members and as payroll provider, you have all the data required (there is a simple template on the site to gather this)

I would describe the process for an employer deciding on a pension provider as;

Decide what features are important to you in a provider

Check which providers offer the features you need/want and are in the market to take you as a client

Compare costs and pick the one with the best "value"

 

Thanks (0)
By [email protected]
09th Oct 2014 12:07

Another Auto-Enrolment, IFA's & Middleware Question

I think that Payroll Professionals have to tread very carefully in deciding any one provider is better than another - on what basis? "Now" as a pension may be  suitable for some employees - as "NEST" might be and although Moneysoft will connect to them - is this relevant? The reason for Automatic Enrolment is to create a good pension outcome. AE is not about the best fit for a particular payroll system - we all know this is a mixed bag of varying ability! That is putting the horse behind the cart! "NOW" or "NEST" or "L&G" may be suitable for the medium and lower paid - but what about the business owners, higher paid individuals or those with existing pension pots? Its a very brave payroll professional with no understanding of pensions to make an arbitrary  choice based on their own payroll system. As an example we as a pension provider have compatibility with Moneysoft and quite a few other systems as well. If a payroll professional is making  the pension decision - will that come back to haunt when business owners begin looking into why they were forced to opt out of their own scheme or why they as employees are being forced to pay for the cost of their Employer's software system. Best Advice? Talk to an Adviser who knows about pension! 

Thanks (1)
Replying to DanDLW:
avatar
By User deleted
09th Oct 2014 12:52

Ha ha

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

I think that Payroll Professionals have to tread very carefully in deciding any one provider is better than another - on what basis? "Now" as a pension may be  suitable for some employees - as "NEST" might be and although Moneysoft will connect to them - is this relevant? The reason for Automatic Enrolment is to create a good pension outcome. AE is not about the best fit for a particular payroll system - we all know this is a mixed bag of varying ability! That is putting the horse behind the cart! "NOW" or "NEST" or "L&G" may be suitable for the medium and lower paid - but what about the business owners, higher paid individuals or those with existing pension pots? Its a very brave payroll professional with no understanding of pensions to make an arbitrary  choice based on their own payroll system. As an example we as a pension provider have compatibility with Moneysoft and quite a few other systems as well. If a payroll professional is making  the pension decision - will that come back to haunt when business owners begin looking into why they were forced to opt out of their own scheme or why they as employees are being forced to pay for the cost of their Employer's software system. Best Advice? Talk to an Adviser who knows about pension! 

As the smaller employers get sucked in, 80%+ will want least cost, least hassle - the pension outcome is not their problem, but the employees - who can opt out and make their own provision if they wish.

Which is the whole reason AE is a complete farce.

Far better just mandatorily collect the 5+3 (for ALL employees) through PAYE in to NEST and let employee decide what to do with it - and no opt out other than to put in their own fund in a similar way to how the serps opt out operated with an annual transfer. That would ensure a good pension outcome. Would be quite happy if an 8% increase to NMW accompanied this to ensure low paid workers suffered no loss of income.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By leicsred
09th Oct 2014 12:16

Clarification

So you feel we wouldn't even be able to give a list of some of the companies that do this, and say these are some options there are others, please talk to your IFA and have a look and take advice about which pension provider you wish to use.

We should just say talk to your IFA? Are we allowed to have a deal with an IFA where we offer there services to clients for an initial review if they wish? 

Ultimately the majority of clients ask us for our opinion and aren't too happy when you have to tell them that we can't express an opinion....

I suppose we need to find a good, cost effective IFA who knows about auto enrollment, rather than just wings it! (as we have found with one large client.....)

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By leicsred
09th Oct 2014 13:51

Pensionplaypen

Just tried this, then they wanted £500 for the quotes! Maybe it's just me, but I'm sure I could get an IFA to do a short presentation and brief discussion with staff for far less than this.

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
blue sheep
By NH
09th Oct 2014 13:57

I wouldnt count on it

leicsred wrote:

Just tried this, then they wanted £500 for the quotes! Maybe it's just me, but I'm sure I could get an IFA to do a short presentation and brief discussion with staff for far less than this.

Previous threads suggested most IFAs wouldnt even look at this, there is just no money in it, if they do they want around £800.

I asked my IFA, he wasnt interested at all

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By [email protected]
10th Oct 2014 13:04

Intelligent Money - an intermediary only Pension Provider provides a GSIPP/NEST Hybrid Pension Product only via Regulated Financial Advisers. This scheme is perhaps the only AE pension that deals with the Pension needs of the higher paid (business owners and senior managers) as well as the staff. It is the only Defaqto 4 Star Rated fully automated Portal Based Pension Compliance and Pension Investment Platform available in the UK. The Product (with advice, and Project Management from regulated Advisers is delivered nationally by trained advisers who do understand AE and Pensions. There are currently 80 Advisers who are trained both on the Payroll software interface and the cutting edge Target Date Investment options managed by leading fund manager Quilter Cheviot designed to provide a glide path to Retirement of either Cash or Income Drawdown. The Adviser network is growing by 20 Advisers per week - these are individual advisers of regional and national Adviser firms. I can assure you that they do want to help Accountants and end user companies.I can confirm that any Accountant firm that feels it would like to outsource the the Project Management and investment advice to someone who knows what they are talking about should contact Chris Sutton Director Intelligent Money by email [email protected] who will be delighted to refer to a local adviser who does want to help.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By leicsred
09th Oct 2014 14:05

Pensionplaypen

I'm sure you're right, it just seemed an awful lot for what essentialy seems to be a price comparison. I personally would rather pay £800 and actually get some advice.

Thanks (0)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By alanchaplin
09th Oct 2014 14:58

pensionplaypen

leicsred wrote:

I'm sure you're right, it just seemed an awful lot for what essentialy seems to be a price comparison. I personally would rather pay £800 and actually get some advice.

Interesting feedback

We at First Actuarial think that some clients will want us to go through playpen on their behalf and provide client specific advice and we charge £1,500 for that.

Here's a link to a recent blog Henry Tapper wrote, which you may find relevant.

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
09th Oct 2014 14:08

yes

I agree, I do not like the look of pensionplaypen at all

Thanks (0)
avatar
By leicsred
09th Oct 2014 15:19

Including?

Does that include the £500 playpen charge?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Practical Advice
10th Oct 2014 07:38

Horses for courses

Hi,   I cannot see anything wrong with the original suggestion of using Moneysoft and Now:Pensions.   You're a step further ahead of many payroll companies in that you're looking at your client bank and making decisions.

You may find that your clients want to understand more on the different contribution basis or how phasing works.  Now might be happy  to help with this, you could learn and provide advice or perhaps just ousource the assistance on decision making to another party.   There must be more than just us who are happy to do this.

Go with what feels right for you and your customers - don't be sold to.  More money doesn't necessarily mean better...   If your clients don't want investment advice then an IFA may not be needed at all.

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
10th Oct 2014 07:55

and if

@practical advice

and if you as the trusted adviser say to a client, "we use NOW Pensions", you dont think that is classed as giving an endorsement to one pension provider above another?

and if the client wants to choose a different provider you tell them to go elsewhere probably to the accountant down the road that decided to spend an extra £800 on proper software?

certainly an interesting approach to customer service

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ed Holt
10th Oct 2014 08:17

Keep your options open............

If I can take the debate up a level, I would counsel 'keep your options open'.

To paraphrase 'AE is like a puppy, not just for Christmas but for life' (ie not just a one time event at staging, but a process to get employers in / advised / set up on a pension scheme then staged and possibly postponed........ and then a process of assessment, contribution calculation, employee communication, managing opt outs, uploading files, reporting feedback, record keeping and audit - and done every payroll run whether weekly or monthly.

HOWEVER, your AE proposition and choice of technology is not for life - you have the right (and business responsibility) to stay aware of the market and move to a better solution later, if one emerges. There are a number of new services coming to market with specific functionality for bureaux to manage the entire AE process automatically (including our own www.aeexpress.co.uk) and they may offer a better future option for you.

My counsel would be not to 'lock yourself' in to a long term contract or big up front financial commitment - give yourself the flexibility to change as new technology appears, as long as it suits your business model. As an example, we don't charge the bureau (it is the client's Regulatory Duty so they pay), there is no up front fee or licence and we give a revenue stream to the bureau as well. And there is no long term commitment - you use it, try it on a first client - and if  like it, you carry on

If using Moneysoft and NOW seems like a good first step, then try it for your first stagers -if the experience is less than satisfactory (or more likely, the amount of human time / cost gets too much due to the manual intervention required), try something else.

Final thought, you will need to partner with one or more organisations like an IFA for help with the pension decision but, as one of the earlier posts says, SME employers will not pay £1000  for advice. There are emerging online tools / services - and indeed lower cost AE Consultants - who can manage and deliver AE for a few hundred pounds. There is no 'free lunch' here for the employer but there are new businesses / models / technologies that will make the AE experience not just easier but potentially profitable for the bureau.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By North East Accountant
10th Oct 2014 08:36

Future Mis-selling

A friend of mine who owns a large national company has visited a huge PPI claim company who has a working party already preparing to target AE mis-selling and incorrect advice by employers and accountants.

Be warned!!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Matthew Parkinson
10th Oct 2014 13:21

Be Warned!?

North East Accountant wrote:

A friend of mine who owns a large national company has visited a huge PPI claim company who has a working party already preparing to target AE mis-selling and incorrect advice by employers and accountants.

Be warned!!

 

Well thats it - Im off!  

It is a good point North East Accountant. My opinion is that a prudent company would/should carry the necessary PI cover and their employees providing guidance should have taken the relevant exams, such as, (at a minimum) the PMI Certificate in Automatic Enrolment. 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Cloudcounter:
By xtraman88
10th Oct 2014 13:45

Well thats it - Im off!

Matthew Parkinson wrote:

North East Accountant wrote:

A friend of mine who owns a large national company has visited a huge PPI claim company who has a working party already preparing to target AE mis-selling and incorrect advice by employers and accountants.

Be warned!!

 

Well thats it - Im off!  

It is a good point North East Accountant. My opinion is that a prudent company would/should carry the necessary PI cover and their employees providing guidance should have taken the relevant exams, such as, (at a minimum) the PMI Certificate in Automatic Enrolment. 

I posted earlier about PI insurance and it was argued that it was not needed, guidance at some point will be construed as advice and then the text massages radio and television adverts will kick in woe betide anyone who does not have the correct PI in place.

On the point of PI we as a company struggled to find an insurer who would cover auto enrolment guidance and on going governance wether it is in person or by an  automated process, we are in the lucky position of having IFA's( Sister Company) with the relevant pension qualifications who sign off all guidance that is given and this is a stipulation of our PI policy.

How many accountants have an IFA at hand to help them ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By User deleted
10th Oct 2014 21:56

Not sure how that works ....

North East Accountant wrote:

A friend of mine who owns a large national company has visited a huge PPI claim company who has a working party already preparing to target AE mis-selling and incorrect advice by employers and accountants.

Be warned!!

... seeing as under AE all an employer has to do is set up and pay in to a pension, nothing about whether it has to be a good one!

With all the hype about AE, what is the situation if employee has own really good scheme and doesn't want crap one offered by employer - if they opt out do they loose teh 5% from the employer?

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By Simon Leyland
10th Oct 2014 17:37

Opting out of AE
If the member opts out of the employers AE scheme for whatever reason then this member will lose the employer pension contribution, simple fact. Whether the employer will,pay this elsewhere is at the discretion of said employer.
With a benchmark charge of 0.75% would rather hope there's less sub standard schemes around, but point taken.

Thanks (0)
blue sheep
By NH
10th Oct 2014 13:28

you include employers in that?

A bit worrying that you include employers as well as accountants in that, I thought the pensions regulator clearly stated that employers offering a scheme to employees does not constitute advice.  Difficult to see in what circumstance they would offer financial advice.

As for the accounants, a timely warning indeed

Thanks (0)
By SteveB@LPAES
10th Oct 2014 15:42

Advice or not advice??

FCA have stated that advice to an employer on their choice of pension scheme is a non regulated activity and so professionals with "experience and knowledge" can engage in this activity....however to muddy the water what happens when a non regulated individual advises a small company to set a certain scheme (advice to the business owner) and said owner joins the scheme?

This has then potentially crossed a line and is regulated advice for which you are on the hook?

Their are three main providers who will currently take all comers and their are no restrictions to join. there is no harm is explaining this. There are also a raft of traditional providers who also accept new schemes but will have criteria as to who they accept. Nothing wrong with that. Factual information on the first three is available on their websites whereas obtaining terms from the other requires an intermediary of some kind. Intermediaries charge fees (and quite rightly so!!).

Surely there is merit in this approach if you do not want to be perceived as giving advice? 

If you "hitch your wagon" to one provider two things will happen,:

You will be perceived as having done some due diligence (audit trail required here I feel) and potentially advised the recipient of this service (small business owner) that this is a good solution That provider will change the way that it works at some point in the next 12-18 mths and that may not suit the way that you would like to work with your clients.

There is a lot that will change in the AE market in the next year so anyone who forms an alliance with one provider and then uses their best clients (biggest ones go first remember!) to test this process needs to be sure that they have it right...or remain open minded partner with an AE specialist and use them to provide the pension guidance.

Check to see whether they have staged anyone yet and how many?Do their processes dovetail in with your own?Will they offer reassurance around DPA (because you will need to share data)

Look before you leap would be my guidance...(no advice there!!!)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Simon Leyland
10th Oct 2014 16:53

Well said Steve
Wise words here, worthwhile reading for all payroll professionals of all descriptions. The point made about intermediaries charging fees is also 'lost' sometimes. Why is this so, are they expected to work for nothing or maybe for a fraction of their worth ( can feel a debate coming on here)?

Thanks (1)