The CII J05 September 2025 Exam in Review

In this article, we’re looking at the CII’s Diploma in Financial Planning J05 exam paper that students sat in September – 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 23 December 2025.

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 expected, the first question in this sitting focused on the lump sum allowance, whereas previous sittings had usually focused on the lifetime allowance. This was quite a technical question with Helina, the protagonist, having taken a pre A-day pension and another one under the lifetime allowance regime. Firstly, candidates were asked to explain how those benefits would impact her remaining lump sum allowance and why she should be advised to apply for a transitional tax-free amount certificate (TTFAC). No calculations were required and only six marks available in total, but this was a tricky little number to start with. Nonetheless, the CII commented that it was generally answered well.

Question 2

This question concerned Rajesh, aged 50, who had a GPP from 1998, a personal pension from 2003 and a SIPP started in 2022. He was transferring the personal pension and the SIPP to his GPP. Candidates were asked to explain in detail what transitional protections may be available to him when the minimum retirement age reaches 57. This was a slightly different way of asking about 2028 protection, which has been covered several times previously in J05 and is likely to be covered again before the time comes. The CII commented that performance was mixed, with many candidates failing to cover the different treatment of the different products or the rules applying to transfers.

Interestingly, the model answer stated correctly that the increase to age 57 will not apply where on or before 4 November 2021, Rajesh had an unqualified right to take benefits before age 57. However, it then stated that the increase will therefore not apply to the GPP or the personal pension plan. Nowhere in the question did it appear to state that any of Rajesh’s schemes offered that right. This may have been an oversight from the CII, but that point aside, this is likely to be tested again, and future candidates would do well to ensure that they are up to speed with the rules.

Question 3

Next we met Sally, aged 74, who had been informed by her GP that she had a life expectancy of less than one year. The question asked the factors we would consider when advising her whether or not to take her SIPP as a serious ill-health lump sum. Factors to consider are a regular feature of J05, however, the subject matter of a serious ill-health lump sum came a bit out of left field.

The CII commented that many candidates did not perform well, with key elements regarding tax treatment of crystallised and uncrystallised funds missed, and too much emphasis placed on death benefits.  The question offered ten marks and therefore potential for quite a few dropped marks for those who were not up to speed with this.

Question 4

This question specifically surrounded the role of tax in retirement strategies and came in two parts. The first surrounded the income tax treatment of death benefits from an uncrystallised personal pension, which is a regular feature of J05 and should have been, and was answered well. The second was more challenging, albeit only for three marks, and asked for three scenarios where IHT may apply to pension death benefits should death occur during the current tax year. This was not answered so well with few candidates obtaining full marks, although not significant in view of the low number available.

Question 5

This question asked for four benefits and four drawbacks of using a fixed-term annuity with a maturity value to phase retirement rather than a lifetime annuity. This, again, was quite a technical question although the general area has come up in the past and the CII commented that candidates did better with the benefits than the drawbacks, with factors such as lower annuity rates resulting from the maturity value and mortality cross-subsidy not being picked up by many candidates.

Question 6

As is quite often the case in J05, we had a defined benefit transfer question here. In this question, we met Hari, aged 62 and looking to retire at 67 with a net income requirement of £20,000. It asked for the factors we would take into account when advising him on whether to accept his £330,000 cash equivalent transfer value. Unlike AF7, answers did not need to be specific to the (limited) client circumstances set out in the question, however the CII commented that those who did relate it to their answers tended to do better and some answers lacked sufficient detail to obtain the mark. Eleven marks were on offer for this question.

Question 7

This question concerned the factors to consider when advising Priti, aged 60, whether to take an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum from her personal pension valued at £120,000 to make a loan to her niece to use as a house deposit.  Again, eleven marks were available. This sort of question is a regular feature of J05, whether regarding an UFPLS or other vesting options and well-prepared candidates could and did score well on it.

Question 8

The next question was a regulatory one and covered the FCA’s requirement for pension providers to encourage customers to shop around when looking to buy a lifetime annuity. Candidates were asked to explain the FCA’s requirements in relation to quote comparison templates. This, again, was a somewhat unusual question and whilst it was only for five marks, the CII commented that few candidates scored highly on it.

Question 9

Question 9 concerned Heidi, aged 62, who has a personal pension, a dependent son and non-dependent daughter. The question concerned why it was advisable for her to complete a death benefit nomination. This is something which has been tested regularly in J05 but performance was mixed. The CII commented that better prepared candidates were able to explain the difference between the dependent son, who could receive income without a nomination form, and non-dependent daughter.

Question 10

Next, we had a state pension question with candidates asked to explain how a state pension forecast will help Carol, aged 61, determine how much her pension will be at state pension age. We were then asked to explain how her pension would be impacted in terms of tax and increases were she to move to New Zealand to be nearer her sister as she is considering doing. The first part of the question offered five marks and the second three. Again, here, important technical points were missed or misunderstood with some candidates believing that she would still receive CPI increases were she to move to New Zealand.

Question 11

This question concerned Arabella, aged 70 and in excellent health, who was taking withdrawals from a flexi-access drawdown plan. Candidates were asked to describe the four key risks that she faced in terms of her withdrawals. This offered eight marks and the verb ‘describe’ indicated that the question required somewhat more than simply stating the names of the risks. Again, this is something which has come up regularly in J05 and the majority of candidates had a strong grasp of the area.

Question 12

This question introduced Rolf, aged 66, who had a personal pension plan from 1995 and wanted to transfer it into his current workplace scheme. Rolf wanted to transfer that plan into his current employer workplace scheme. The question was a fact-finding one asking for the additional information his financial adviser would require from each scheme to assess the appropriateness of a transfer.

Fact-finding questions are a regular feature of AF7 and occasionally pop up in J05. The CII commented that quite a few candidates fell into the old trap of stating information relating to Rolf himself rather than the scheme, which was not what was being asked and does highlight the importance of reading the question thoroughly, particularly when there are 11 marks at stake.

Question 13

Next up we had a standard two-part question asking candidates firstly to explain the purpose of creating a lifetime cashflow model as part of retirement planning and secondly to state six stress tests that should be undertaken as part of an annual review. Cashflow modelling and stress testing questions are a regular feature of J05 and anyone well prepared should have been able to score very close to the full 5 and 6 marks available for the two parts. The CII did comment that some candidates lost marks in part 2 for not including sufficient detail, for example simply stating the inflation rate rather than specifying a higher-than-expected rate of inflation.

Question 14

This question covered the Money and Pensions Service, which provides guidance to those aged 50 or over who are considering accessing defined contribution schemes and asked for four benefits and four drawbacks of taking guidance. This was a rather vague question with little clue as to the sort of things that the CII would consider appropriate answers and it is not surprising that the CII commented that a lot of candidates struggled to provide drawbacks. The type of answers stated included not looking at wider planning needs and not having the protections afforded by regulated advice.

Question 15

Finally, we had a ten-mark questions asking us to outline the factors that should be taken into account when carrying out an annual review of a flexi-access drawdown plan. This was not something which should have held too many fears for those from a practical financial planning background and indeed most answered it well.

Overall, despite one or two trickier questions, the paper was fair and consistent with expectations and should not have held too many gremlins for well-prepared candidates.

Comparison with the March 2025 Exam Paper 

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

The topics covered were:  

• Lump sum allowance.
• Defined benefit schemes.
• Phased drawdown.
• Death benefits.
• UFPLS vs drawdown.
• Annuity vs drawdown.
• Factors to consider when making drawdown recommendations.
• Pension scams.
• Bereavement support payment.
• Attitude to risk/risk profiling tools.
• Pension income recycling.
• Defined benefit transfer advice requirement.
• Cashflow modelling advantages and disadvantages.
• Pension versus ISA contributions.

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.