Three quarters of trustees and pension professionals think the government should scrap its restrictions on how often people can use Pension wise, PP research finds.
The majority of the 142 respondents to this week's Pensions Buzz survey supported the idea, put forward by Citizens Advice.
Elsewhere in this week's research, respondents supported plans to streamline the Pensions Ombudsman, but questioned the value of the Pension Protection Fund.
Alarming, the research revealed that one in eight schemes have not reviewed additional voluntary contribution arrangements in the last decade.
Three quarters of this week's respondents said there should be no restrictions on how many Pension wise appointments people could make.
This follows calls from Citizens Advice, which delivers the government's face-to-face guidance service, to let people have multiple appointments.
One pundit said: "This can never work on a 'once only' basis. Experience of annuity providers is that there's an average of three points of contact - 1) 'I want a quote', 2) talk me through the options and 3) I want to go ahead with it. Pension freedoms give more choice and therefore people want more support."
One commentator suggested limiting under-55s to one session a year, and lifting all restrictions on older savers. Another asked: "Why would you want to restrict this?"
Only 4% said using the service should be limited to three tries while 8% said people should be allowed to use it twice and 7% argued for it only once.
A commentator said: "It isn't rocket science - one visit will be more than enough."
Two thirds respondents backed plans by the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) to speed up its decision making process. PO
Anthony Arter has suggested settling more cases with an informal mechanism.
However a number of pundits warned speed should not come at the expense of fairness and quality.
One commentator said: "As long as decisions are consistent - if different investigators give different decisions on the same or similar cases, it won't work."
Another argued the PO had to return to first principles and the Ombudsman's office was not performing well. "If it takes two years or more to get an Ombudsman decision then obviously the Ombudsman function is failing in its purpose. This idea should go some way to bringing the Ombudsman office back on track."
Conversely 18% rejected the idea, saying settling complaints with informal opinions would not lead to sound rulings.
Two thirds of respondents that work with defined benefit schemes said they had reviewed additional voluntary contributions (AVC) provision within the last three years.
More than a third said they had done this in the past year and 31% said they had done it within the last one to three years.
Some pundits said the increasing focus on defined contribution (DC) governance and the onset of pension freedoms had forced them to look at AVCs.
A commentator said: "The AVCs are discussed at the same time we review our DC provisions - also they are an integral part of our quarterly investment and communication working party meetings. An annual overview of the provisions of all money purchase provisions is made."
Worryingly, one in eight respondents said their scheme had not examined AVC provision in the last ten years, or had never reviewed it.
Just one in five respondents said the Pension Protection Fund, gave good value to the schemes it stands behind.
Twice that proportion said was said the money raised by the PPF levy could be better spent, with some criticising the lifeboat funds lack of transparency.
One critic said: "The PPF is an overblown bureaucracy whose purpose has transformed from helping members into perpetuating its own self-existence. It is vastly expensive (despite all the metrics its propaganda arm produces to dispute that) and needs reform."
Another reflected that as a trustee of a scheme which was in good shape it felt that they were sponsoring the less well run schemes. "In fact I see it as a tax on defined benefit schemes," they added. "What happens to the huge pot of money that they have generated - if they have too much do we get some back?"
The majority of respondents said pensions legislation could be condensed into 40-page document.
However many were not unsure whether the obstacles to simplifying regulations, such as consultants and politicians, could be bypassed.
One said: "It should be possible but there are too many consultants, lawyers, advisers etc. always looking for loopholes and work-arounds for their wealthy clients.
Therefore the regulations are overlong and incomprehensible to the average punter to try and combat clever dicks looking for an angle."
Another called on Ros Altmann to deal with it and asked:
"It isn't rocket science, is it?"
However a third were sceptical of the proposal. "There are too many varieties of companies, people in different circumstances/ages and history to achieve this," said one.
Another said it was not just the regulations that make pensions complicated but pension tax and all the protection and measurement rules.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has substantially increased the usage of its powers against trustees – posting a sharp rise in the use of formal information gathering powers and High Court production orders during the three months to the end of September....
The Pension Schemes Bill has completed its third reading, crossing its latest hurdle in the House of Commons.
An amendment to the Pensions Schemes Bill which would have seen people given a pre-booked Pension Wise appointment ahead of accessing their retirement savings has been defeated.
A proposal to ensure savers receive a Pension Wise appointment prior to accessing their retirement pot has received cross-party support in parliament, while Labour seeks net-zero pensions by 2050.
Pension scams are not just about the money lost, but the lives devastated, says Nicola Parish, so the industry must unite to defeat this scourge.