The CII J05 March 2026 Exam in Review

In this article, we’re looking at the CII’s Diploma in Financial Planning J05 exam paper that students sat in March – this is the exam on Pension Income Options. This will be useful reading for you if you are preparing to sit this exam in the near future; it will help you to focus your revision on the areas that are likely to be examined.

This article is correct as at 21 May 2026.

You can find a copy of the exam guide here.*  

Two hours are given to answer 15 questions for a total of 130 marks; a pass gives students 20 Diploma credits.

Question 1

As usually happens in J05, the first question was a lump sum allowance (previously lifetime allowance) related one. This time, it related to transitional tax-free amount certificates (TTFAC) and Fred who had been advised to apply for one. Candidates were asked to identify three scenarios that might result in the PCLS taken before 6 April 2024 being less than 25% of £1,073,100 and to outline the step-by-step process for applying for a TTFAC.

Notwithstanding that the first part of the question was rather confusingly worded (an accurate description would have been ‘less than 25% of the lifetime allowance value of the benefits’), TTFAC-related questions have come up in J05 previously. Well-prepared candidates should have been in a position to answer the question well. The CII, however, stated that some candidates were not specific enough to gain marks or misunderstood the standard transitional calculation basis.

Question 2

In Question 2, we met Sanjay, who holds a SIPP valued at £120,000. The question asked how the transaction was treated under the relevant benefit crystallization event (RBCE) rules if he took the funds as a UFPLS or applied the full value to buy a lifetime annuity. This was for five marks only and should have been relatively straightforward for well-prepared candidates. However, where marks were lost, it was due to a lack of technical understanding.

Question 3

This question concerned Jonny, aged 74, who retired last year. He had a pre-A-day scheme pension in payment and a small deferred scheme offering a £750 per annum pension and £2,250 lump sum. The question asked candidates to calculate the total value of Jonny’s scheme pensions for the purposes of potentially taking a trivial commutation lump sum. The second part of the question asked the conditions that must be met for this to occur and whether Jonny would actually be able to do this. The CII commented that this was well answered overall, albeit some candidates were again confused by technicalities.

Question 4

This question referred to Rowan, who died recently at the age of 51 with an uncrystallized pension plan. The question was a two-part one, which asked firstly for the criteria for a beneficiary to be classed as a dependant, nominee or successor and secondly the death benefit options available from the plan for her children (excluding tax treatment). This was a standard J05 question and whilst some candidates did well, again, the CII remarked that some answers lacked sufficient information or misunderstood technical details.

Question 5

Question 5 was an interesting one which introduced Tobias, aged 61, planning to phase his retirement and reduce his working hours next year. He had a cautious attitude to risk. The question asked candidates to describe the steps that would be taken to implement phased retirement using annuities and how the balance between PCLS and taxable income would change over time. Part 2 asked for 9 factors that would influence the annuity rate Toby received. This was a new one to J05, although the general principles of annuities and phased retirement have been tested previously, with the second part answered better than the first according to the feedback.

Question 6

Next up, candidates were asked to outline the factors that would be considered when advising on whether to take a lump sum as a UFPLS or a PCLS. This has come up regularly in J05 and other pension exams previously and ought to have been money for old rope for well-prepared candidates. For 11 marks, it also offered the opportunity to bag almost 15% of the marks required to pass in one go and feedback was that quite a number did.

Question 7

This was another well-travelled question, a regulatory one covering the risk factors which should be included in a recommendation report concerning income withdrawals. The CII, though, commented that some candidates appeared confused between different parts of the COBS sourcebook.

Question 8

This question introduced Sian, who retired and took her scheme pension benefits two years ago at the age of 60, with the normal retirement age being 65. The scheme entered the pension protection fund (PPF) and the question asked candidates to explain how Sian’s benefits will be impacted as a result of the DB scheme entering the PPF. This was only for six marks, but this question (or similar) has been asked numerous times before and well-prepared candidates ought to have scored nicely on it.  Surprisingly, one common failing surrounded identifying that the pension could be reduced to 90% as she had not reached the normal retirement age.

Question 9

Question 9 related to Amanda and Lee, who live together but are not married. Amanda was considering applying for the guarantee credit element of the state pension and the question asked the conditions that must be met for Amanda to receive this element. This was something of a curveball as it is not something tested very often, but for five marks, it was an allowable loss if candidates were not familiar with the rules. The CII stated that it was not answered well by some, even though figures are stated in the accompanying tax tables.

Question 10

This was, again, something of an unusual one. The question concerned Dwight, who recently retired and set up a flexi-access drawdown plan and wished to leave a legacy to his children. The question, which was for seven marks, asked candidates to outline the factors that should be taken into account when determining the amount of income he should take from his flexi-access drawdown plan. Feedback, though, was that it was answered well overall.

Question 11

This question covered risk profiling tools and came in two parts for five and three marks respectively. The first part asked the key factors that an adviser would consider when assessing a client’s attitude to risk as part of their retirement investment strategy. The second to identify three drawbacks of relying on risk profiling tools for this purpose. This type of question is common to many CII exams rather than simply pension ones. It ought to have been, and was, a question most practising financial planners could answer.

Question 12

In this question, we met Carlos, aged 63, who had a personal pension plan valued at £340,000 invested in a lifestyle annuity fund. Carlos had a ‘high’ attitude to risk and planned to draw his income via a series of UFPLS. Candidates were asked to explain why his current approach was unsuitable and then why he would benefit from an earmarked investment strategy in retirement, each part for four marks. The first part of this question ought to have been relatively straightforward, the second potentially trickier as this area of the syllabus has not been regularly tested previously. This was reflected in the results.

Question 13

Next up, we met Oscar, aged 55, who was about to retire using flexi-access drawdown. The question again came in two parts, firstly explaining what is meant by sequencing risk for three marks and then listing four strategies which could be used to reduce its potential impact for four. Sequencing risk has been covered on numerous occasions in J05 and other pension exams and it is again a question on which well-prepared candidates could have scored full, or close to full, marks. The CII commented that it was, on the whole, well answered.

Question 14

In Question 14, we met Norah, aged 58, single with no dependants, who planned to retire in six months’ time with a net income requirement of £26,000 per annum. She was in receipt of a scheme pension of £8,000 per annum and had a personal pension valued at £550,000. The question asked candidates to outline the factors they would consider when deciding whether to recommend that she purchase a lifetime annuity or take her income via flexi-access drawdown. This, again, is something which has been tested previously and well-prepared candidates could, and did, score well on it.

Question 15

Finally, Question 15 introduced Sally and Pippa, aged 62 and 56, both self-employed, married and hoping to retire next year. Sally and Pippa wished to take the maximum PCLS from their pensions and move the balance into drawdown, reducing withdrawals when they reached state pension age. The question came in two parts worth 7 and 5 marks respectively. The first asked candidates to outline the benefits of cashflow modelling when advising them on their retirement plans. The second was a minor curveball which asked for five disadvantages of using cashflow modelling for this purpose. Nonetheless, cashflow modelling has been well tested in J05 and other CII exams over the years and, again, practicing planners could, and did, pick up good marks on this question.

Overall, this paper tested candidate knowledge broadly across the syllabus but should not have contained much that was too scary for those who had done their preparation.

Comparison with the September 2025 Exam Paper 

Let’s compare this paper with what was tested in September 2025. That exam guide can be found here.* 

The topics covered were:  

• Lump sum allowance/ Transitional tax-free amount certificates.
• 2028 protection
• Serious ill-health lump sums
• Tax treatment of death benefits
• Fixed-term annuities
• Drawdown versus scheme pension
• Pros and cons of UFPLS
• Annuity comparison measures
• Death benefit nominations
• State pension forecasts and non-residence
• Drawdown risk factors
• Additional information required
• Cashflow modelling
• Pros and cons of MaPS guidance
• Drawdown review considerations

Interestingly, there was a limited amount in common between the two most recent sittings. However, lump sum allowance, drawdown, cashflow modelling, death benefits, state pensions and the PPF are all areas of pension planning which have been tested regularly in the past and will likely be again in the future.

Grab the resources you need!

If you’re studying for your CII J05 exam, and you want to be fully prepared, grab our free taster to try out one of Brand Financial Training’s resources for yourself. Click the link to download the J05 mock paper taster now!

* The CII has updated their retention policy and now only provides the last two exam papers. Older papers referenced in this article may no longer be available on the CII website.