Information published by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is casting doubt on just how useful the Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme (ROPS) List is for retirement savers and pension providers.
The list is meant to give guidance to savers, IFAs and pension providers about overseas pensions that have self-certified their schemes meet HMRC rules.
However, on the list published on October 15, 29 German pensions were double listed showing 58 pensions for the country.
On the new list, published on November 2, the number of German pensions dropped back to 29.
In the notes published with lists highlighting changes, no German pensions were mentioned.
29 QROPS listed by mistake
The 29 extra pensions were all duplicates of schemes already listed and no new German QROPS were opened or current schemes delisted during the period covered by the lists.
The changes were made without any public comment in the update section of the ROPS List web page.
HMRC was asked to comment on the listings.
The specific question put to HMRC was: “Can you confirm that HMRC made a mistake on the ROPS List of October 15 by publishing the schemes listed for Germany twice and that this has been corrected on the current list?”
An HMRC spokesman replied: “Thanks for your comment about the list published on 15 October.”
The last major listing bungle by HMRC was in July 2013, when a spokesman admitted someone had published the list in error and mistakenly delisted 432 pensions. On that occasion, a new list was including the pensions left off in error was published the next day.
The ROPS list is aimed at telling consumers and the industry that they can transfer UK pension funds to the scheme after undertaking their own due diligence to verify the overseas pension is a ROPS.
What’s the point of the QROPS list?
Penalties for transferring funds to pensions that fail to meet the criteria start at 55% of the fund switched to the ROPS.
The problem for advisers and consumers is the list seems pointless.
The latest error highlights that no one can be sure whether an overseas pension is listed by design or error because HMRC fails to guarantee the validity of the data.
Guidance safeguards HMRC from any action over errors on the list, while unfairly, a consumer or adviser would seem to have no come back if HMRC makes a mistake based publishing information on the list.
This article is unfair – HMRC go to great pains to vet overseas pension schemes as ROPS and I believe their disclaimer/warning is fair – it is ultimately up to the member of a receiving qrop scheme to check it status. Financial authorities around the world rely on the disclosures made by third parties – everything from a corporations tax return to a dividend reclaim – every peice of information cannot possibly be tested as if it was provided in bad faith. The UK is the only country in the world that provides a mechanism that allows people working overseas who intend to retire overseas a transfer of their pension assets/benefits. This article is unbalanced and in no way recognizes the strength of the UK system and the hard work that HMRC employees undertake to provide the service.