Transferring a pension to another provider should be easy-peasy, but it isn't. Far too many companies drag their feet for all kinds of reasons – incompetence foremost among them – and it isn't good enough. At the end of the day, it's our money, not theirs.

I speak from personal experience. Currently going through a protracted divorce, this painful process has been exacerbated by the unacceptable time it has taken one pension provider (a well-known investing platform) to return forms paving the way for my pension to be transferred to my wife. Only my personal intervention, at the request of my solicitor, got the ball rolling.

In a world where most financial transactions are conducted online, there is no excuse for companies to dilly-dally when it comes to pension switching.

Of course, ceding firms (those losing our custom) need to ensure we're not being scammed by a new pension manager promising the earth and then disappearing with our money in a swag bag. And consumers must be made aware of any benefits they may lose by transferring elsewhere (for example, the right to a favourable guaranteed annuity rate).

But transfers should only take days, not weeks or months. As one pension insider told me last week: 'Switching pensions should be straightforward in this connected world, but it's a complete mess.

'Some transfers go through relatively quickly while others take months and turn into an administrative nightmare for the poor souls involved. Errors, delays, poor processes, inadequate technology and too many participants passing the buck and blaming others for their own tardiness is something that demands attention and maybe even a change in primary legislation to force improvement.'

It's a problem that City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), is aware of. It has been seeking opinion from the great and good on how retirement outcomes for consumers can be improved in a changing pensions landscape – against the backdrop of an employment market where job mobility has come to the fore, resulting in people accumulating a potpourri of pensions.

By 'consumers', the FCA means those who work in the private sector and primarily depend upon a big dose of stellar stock-market performance to see their pension funds (defined contribution) deliver an adequate income in retirement.

Its work does not embrace public sector consumers for whom better pension outcomes are not possible. After all, they continue to enjoy what we mere mortals in the private sector will never have the opportunity to benefit from: risk-free, gold-plated defined benefit pensions underpinned by taxpayers.

The callout from the FCA also covers the regulation of self-invested personal pensions (not fit for purpose) and whether rules should be tweaked to help consumers engage more with their pensions (yes, please). But a big chunk, quite rightly, is dedicated to improving pension transfers.

Online pension provider PensionBee, headed by Romi Savova, is one of the first companies to confirm it has responded to the FCA's 'discussion paper'. It wants the Government to legislate for a ten-day pension switch guarantee.

It would be a clone of the (successful) current account switch guarantee which the coalition government introduced 12 years ago – resulting in a bank account switch taking only seven working days.

PensionBee's proposal is not without a dose of self-interest, but it's an idea the Government should embrace. However, given the sluggish pace at which plans to launch online pension dashboards are progressing (enabling us to see all our pensions and state pension on one page), it might not get the swift attention it deserves.

In the meantime, the pensions industry would do itself a great service by agreeing to publish half-yearly statistics on the average time it takes ceding companies to meet requests from customers wishing to transfer their plans.

Many years ago, numerous consumer champions called for insurance firms to publish regular statistics on the percentage of claims they paid on protection policies (permanent health insurance and critical illness).

The industry balked at the idea but was eventually persuaded to provide the stats. This resulted in all providers pulling up their socks and playing fair when it came to meeting claims.

Greater transparency on pension switching times would have a similar revolutionary impact.

PS: If you're having an horrendous experience transferring a pension, I'm all ears. Email [email protected]

Prepare for battle at £101m fund as managers are sacked in shake-up

The Association of Investment Companies took time out last week from worrying about the attack on its industry by American hedge fund manager Saba to celebrate 30 years of venture capital trusts (VCTs).

It is a sub-sector of the investment trust industry that manages more than £6 billion of assets, providing all-important finance to early-stage businesses.

Yet not all is hunky-dory at one of the 45 VCTs: Amati AIM, launched 24 years ago to generate tax-free capital growth and dividend income for shareholders from a portfolio comprising Aim-traded firms.

The hoo-ha is a result of the trust's board wanting to shake up the £101 million fund to improve shareholder returns which have been hit by a listless Aim market.

Over the past three years, investor losses have exceeded 34 per cent, although these were mitigated by the upfront tax relief (30 per cent) most shareholders enjoyed provided they held their shares for at least five years.

The shake-up is two-pronged. First, following a beauty parade, the board has appointed Maven Capital Partners to manage the trust. Secondly, it wants to widen the trust's investment remit so that it is not 'primarily' focused on Aim-listed firms – and is able to invest in unquoted businesses that may not list on Aim.

What has miffed some VCT experts is that shareholders have had no say on Maven's appointment, although they will be given a vote on the change of investment policy.

Peter Hicks, research analyst at Chelsea Financial Services, says: 'Clients chose the trust on the basis of the Amati management team and the asset class, not the board. We do not think it is right for the board to sack the manager without a shareholder vote.'

He also says many of his clients are locked in for five years because of the 30 per cent income tax relief conditions, so they can't vote with their feet.

Ben Yearsley, a VCT expert, describes the board's actions as 'bizarre' and believes they should resign if they lose the vote on the change of investment mandate. Last week, Fiona Wollocombe, chair of Amati AIM VCT, said the duty of a trust board was to appoint investment managers best capable of delivering good returns for shareholders.

On Friday the board announced to the London Stock Exchange the terms of Maven's appointment (including fees) and a new board member with expertise in small quoted and unquoted businesses.

For the record, Wollocombe was a director of Maven Income & Growth VCT until 2019. She told me she had not been conflicted as a result, insisting: 'If anything, they [Maven] had to perform better than the other candidates [to manage the trust].'

This trust battle has legs.