I have a personal pension which I opened in the 1980s with Wesleyan Financial Services.
In recent years, I received letters and emails suggesting my pension would be ‘lifestyled’ into a lower-risk fund five years ahead of my claim date, which was set to be when I turned 65 in March 2020.
This did not happen and instead, my money remained in a fund rated moderate-high risk/high reward until March 2020.
At this point, I realised what had happened and asked for the switch to be made manually. The same month, I asked for my pension date to be moved forward five years to March 2025.
Shortly after, the stock market plummeted due to the pandemic and I am now entering retirement with a shortfall in my fund.
Had my pension been moved into a lower-risk fund in 2015, as Wesleyan said it would be in its letters, I believe I would not have lost as much money.
In the event, it fell by approximately £8,500. Is there anything I can do? I.M, Exeter
Downturn: This reader’s pension pot declined in value in recent stock market dips
Helen Crane of This is Money replies: We initially spoke late last year, but I thought your story was worth sharing now, as those approaching retirement may once again be concerned about stock market turbulence caused by Donald Trump’s tariffs and what that means for their retirement funds.
Losses during the pandemic were much steeper, however. In March 2020, your pension was worth about £50,500, but by April 2021 this had fallen by more than 20 per cent to about £39,000.
At the end of 2024, it had recovered somewhat, rising to £42,000.
Like a number of pension savers, you were unfortunate to also be affected by the stock market fall of 2022, which happened after the mini-Budget.
You expected to be shielded against these losses to a degree, thanks to a common feature of pensions known as lifestyling.
This is where savers’ money is moved into lower-risk investments as they approach retirement. The idea is that, while the gains they make won’t be as large as previous years, the risk of losing money is also lower.
It is intended to avoid big drops just before they need to access their money.
You were sent a letter five years out from your initial retirement date, which explained why you might wish to consider moving your pension into lower-risk funds.
This also included a generic ‘information sheet’ about lifestyling, which wasn’t tailored to your pension specifically.
This said that ‘Lifestyling starts five years before your benefit date, unless you tell us you don’t want to include it’ – so you thought this would happen.
I contacted Wesleyan to ask why it did not.
It told me that as the pension was taken out in the 1980s, when lifestyling was uncommon, the plan did not have this built in to it.
Lifestyling only became popular in the 2000s, as customers with more modern ‘unitised’ funds approached retirement.
This is where a savers’ money is used to buy ‘units’ in a fund, and receives the same amount of ‘units’ back at the end – hopefully having grown in value through investments.
Before that, many policies paid out a defined sum or benefit when they matured, regardless of how the investments performed.
As your plan predated this change, Wesleyan confirmed that lifestyling would not happen unless you gave the instruction.
The company claims that it confirmed to you that lifestyling was not part of your policy in 2019, though you did not share that letter with me.
It previously investigated a complaint from you, which was not upheld. Wesleyan also told me that the Financial Ombudsman Service investigated your complaint and agreed with Wesleyan’s finding that it was not accountable for any financial loss.
A spokesperson for the Wesleyan Group said: ‘We were sorry to hear of I.M’s complaint in 2022.
‘We fully investigated it at that time, as did the independent Financial Ombudsman, and both agreed that Wesleyan was not to be held accountable.’
I do agree with you that some of the information you were sent by Wesleyan could have been clearer, in particular the fact that it sent you a generic ‘information sheet’ on lifestyling which didn’t reflect your situation.
However, you may be interested to learn that some people who did have their pension lifestyled in the last few years ended up losing a lot of money from their pot, too.
That is because lower-risk pension funds are often heavily invested in government bonds or gilts, which tumbled in value after the 2022 mini-Budget – something that not many people expected.
Of course, it is impossible to know now whether you would have ended up better or worse off.
See this column former pensions minister Steve Webb wrote for us at the time.
The global trade war launched by US president Donald Trump has sparked a bond sell-off in recent weeks.
If the chaos continues or worsens, older workers may once again discover they are sitting on big pension fund losses right on the brink of retirement, which they might be forced to delay as a result.
Finally, I don’t know what your plans are for the pension, but if you left it invested, as opposed to buying an annuity for example, the investments would have the chance to increase again.
Some experts would suggest avoiding lifestyling if you intended to stay invested for the long term, as this could result in higher returns – though there is always risk.
I am not a pensions expert so it is worth taking proper advice, but this is something to consider.
Shoe-d away: Clarks refused to accept E.A’s voucher, claiming it wasn’t valid
Clarks turned away my £75 voucher
Last Christmas, my son bought me a £75 voucher for Clarks shoe shop.
When I tried to spend it in my local store recently, I was told the card had not been validated and was therefore unusable.
It was hard to get hold of the customer service department, so I lodged a complaint online.
I’ve recently been told by Clarks that the card has been reloaded – but only with a balance of £26. E.A, Hampshire
Helen Crane replies: Clarks is a staple of the British high street, so it is unfortunate to hear that the firm put its foot in it when it came to sorting out your gift voucher.
You told me the assistant in the Andover store spent 40 minutes on the phone trying to get it sorted, but in the end said you needed to call customer services yourself.
After trying and failing to get through on the phone for 90 minutes, you put in a complaint via the website, providing the receipts for the gift cards from your son.
As your reward for all that effort, you got back only a fraction of the full balance.
You told me: ‘The effort and hours spent trying to get this sorted was disgusting. The company have and are making this as difficult as possible for people, perhaps hoping people give up!’
I attempted to contact the shoe retailer myself for several months, but unfortunately never received a reply.
However, one of our complaints must have eventually been heard, as you recently contacted me to say the remaining £49 had been credited to your voucher.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
