Disability Equality Scheme
7 May 2008
We are pleased to launch the Disability Equality Scheme for the Office. Our staff have a commitment to equal opportunities and diversity and the Disability Equality Scheme is part of this overall approach. You can find it on the Publications page.

2008/09 Business Plan
6 May 2008
We are pleased to present our 2008/09 Business Plan. You will find it in the publications page

Welsh Language Scheme approved
24 January 2008
We are pleased to announce that following the consultation period our Welsh Language Scheme was approved by the Welsh Board on December 18, 2007. You will find it listed in our Publications page.

Pensions Ombudsman publishes draft Welsh language scheme
25 October 2007
Ombwdsmon Pensiynau yn cyhoeddi cynllun iaith Gymraeg drafft

Mae’r Ombwdsmon Pensiynau wedi cyhoeddi cynllun iaith Gymraeg drafft, o dan Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg 1993, yn esbonio sut y bydd am gynnig gwasanaethu i’r cyhoedd drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Maent bellach yn ymgynghori’n gyhoeddus ar gynnwys y cynllun – a gellir ei weld yma:

cyswllt url

Gellir anfon sylwadau am y cynllun, erbyn 7/12/2007, at: Jane Carey, Rheolwr Busnes, Ombwdsmon Pensiynau, 11 Belgrave Road, Llundain SW1V 1RB


* * * *


Pensions Ombudsman publishes a draft Welsh language scheme
The Pensions Ombudsman has published a draft Welsh language scheme under the Welsh Language Act 1993, setting out how it will provide services to the public through the medium of Welsh. That scheme is now out for public consultation and may be viewed here:

url link

Comments on the draft scheme may be sent, by 7/12/2007, to: Jane Carey, Business Manager, Pensions Ombudsman, 11 Belgrave Road, London SW1V 1RB

PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN SAYS ADMINISTRATION OF PENSION SCHEMES IS IMPROVING
16 July 2007
Pensions Ombudsman David Laverick completes his six-year term on 31 August. In his final Annual Report he points to improvements which have been made to pensions’ administration particularly in handling applications for ill health retirement. These follow his insistence that pension schemes should give reasons for their decisions. In his report he notes that these kinds of decision can have a very significant impact on the lives of pension scheme members and their families, going on to say that by comparison with six years ago “procedures are fairer and more transparent with better quality decisions being made.”

Although there have also been improvements in the way Death Benefits are distributed, he remains concerned that such decisions are taken at the discretion of the Trustees or Managers of Schemes. He feels such benefits should be distributed in accordance with the expressed wish of the scheme members.

The Ombudsman also refers to his continued concern at the lack of effective regulation of Independent Trustees and the application to them of exoneration or exclusion clauses which mean that the Professional Trustee has no liability to provide redress if mistakes are made. He says it is wrong in principle for a person to be paid for professional services and yet not provide redress where members suffer as a result of maladministration in the way those services are delivered. He suggests that an arguable case can be made out that Independent Trustees who are found not to have sound administrative systems should not be regarded by the Regulator as being fit and proper persons to be retained on the Regulator’s List, particularly where such an Independent Trustee seeks to rely on an exoneration clause to leave without redress the individuals affected by their faulty procedures.

The Pensions Ombudsman repeats a call for the Government to review provision in some public sector benefit schemes of no – fault compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Disputes about such arrangements have been an increasing proportion of his work over the last year.

Looking to the future, he expresses concern that the move away from final salary schemes and the level of contributions now being made will lead to many people being disappointed with the amount of the pension that they will be able to receive on retirement.

David Laverick’s successor will be Tony King, an Ombudsman currently working for the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Government having recently announced an intention to merge the two Offices. Commenting on this, David Laverick says

“There is much I admire in the Financial Ombudsman Service but the scale of its operations puts it outside my own concept of how an Ombudsman should look.”

Pensions Ombudsman calls for changes to pensions schemes
31 August 2006
Annual Report 2005-2006

Pensions Ombudsman, David Laverick, has called on Pension Schemes to change the way they deal with the payment of Death Benefits when a scheme member dies in service.

In presenting his latest Annual Report, the Pensions Ombudsman said that many members of pension schemes do not realise that such monies do not automatically go to their partner or indeed to anyone else who the member might specifically want to benefit, the Trustees of the Scheme usually have a discretion as to where to pay the benefits.

The Pensions Ombudsman says in his report that it is often difficult if not impossible for trustees to be aware of the needs and financial status of all possible recipients and that they can find themselves dealing with some very emotive issues. Speaking today he said:

"Estranged spouses and present lovers find it difficult to accept that there is no single right answer to which trustees can come. For trustees to reach their decision is hard enough. Explaining that decision to the parties is even harder."

The Ombudsman favours a system whereby trustees would be required to allocate the benefits in accordance with the wishes of the Scheme Member.

The Pensions Ombudsman accepts that a consequence of adopting his proposal may be to make such payments subject to Inheritance Tax, but says that for many members of occupational pension schemes this would be a theoretical possibility rather than a practical reality. It could in any event be avoided if the Government exempted such payments from Inheritance Tax.

The system which the Pensions Ombudsman favours is already used in the Pension Scheme for Teachers in Scotland but is not usually found in other public sector schemes in the United Kingdom. Commenting on that and other variations, David Laverick says:

"My experience suggests there would be merit in the Government undertaking a review of the detailed provisions of the various public sector schemes with the aim of having them all operate on a more uniform basis. There may be reasons why schemes for particular groups of workers need to have some special provision in place: but all too often it looks to me as if there is no objective reason to explain the lack of a common approach.

The lack of a common approach is a comment which could also be made about the myriad of pension schemes which are outside the public sector, each of which is likely to have its own definition of what constitutes pensionable pay and its own criteria as to when a pension can be granted on grounds of ill health. Perhaps efforts could be made to promote the production and then implementation of a limited number of Model Schemes. Were the Government to see itself as a single employer, it could lead a drive for simpler and more uniform schemes."

Recalling that when he took up his appointment the Government was undertaking a review aimed at simplifying the Regulation of Pensions, the Ombudsman said:

"Whatever else the Pensions Act 2004 may have achieved, I doubt whether it could be said to have simplified the law relating to pensions.

I noted with some despair the decision, after all, not to sweep away the complexities of the Regulations about internal dispute resolution processes, on the grounds that to do so would be too complicated. What complication would there be in sweeping away that raft of Regulation and replacing it with a single sentence which would not of itself involve any expense to schemes? I do not accept the argument that secondary legislation is needed to spell out in great detail the processes which schemes need to use to deal with complaints made about them."

The Pensions Ombudsman has also urged that professional trustees should not be allowed to benefit from clauses in Pension Schemes which allow trustees to escape personal liabilities arising from their work as a Trustee. Noting that the Law Commission had decided that no change in the law should be recommended, the Pensions Ombudsman said:

"In the specific context of pensions trusts, it seems to me to be quite wrong for a professional trustee who is being paid for his expertise, not to be required to provide redress for the consequences of any maladministration for which he is responsible."

The number of complaints made to the Pensions Ombudsman was nearly 30% less than in the previous year: 2790 in the year ending 31 March 2006 by comparison with 3930 in the previous year. About a third of these enquiries are accepted for investigation.

The lower incoming workload has enabled the Pensions Ombudsman to reduce the number of investigations in hand. 1226 investigations were closed during the year and the number in hand has fallen from 1702 at the start of the year to 1413 at the close. Working with current staffing levels this means that even if no further incoming work is revived it would still take about a year for the Office to deal with the work already in the pipeline.

In his Annual Report, the Pensions Ombudsman said:

"A year ago I expressed concern that the necessary changes to accommodation and IT, without which I could not employ sufficient staff, had not been put in place. At first sight, the same can be said of my position at the end of the year. But I am conscious that there has been considerable efforts made during the year so that there is now a more realistic prospect of my frustration coming to an end. The refurbishment of my accommodation is almost complete and a contract is about to be let for replacement of the IT systems, delivery of which should do much to improve the efficiency of the Office."

Less optimistically, he added:

"Only the new hardware and basic software will be in place by October 2006 when my staff and I will move back to refurbished premises. Further work will then need to continue to develop the new case and document management systems ready for use by the end of this calendar year. Despite having raised the need for this system with the then Minister at my first meeting with him after taking up office, I am not confident that it will be up and running before I retire next year."

David Laverick has also been appointed as the Ombudsman for the Pension Protection Fund which has been set up to provide pensions for members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes which are winding up without sufficient funds to meet their liabilities. He also reviews decisions made by the Financial Assistance Scheme which is run by the Department for Work and Pensions to provide limited assistance to members of schemes which have been subject to insolvency before the date from when the Pension Protection Fund can become involved. Systems have been set up to deal with this work but no matters had been raised with him before the end of the last financial year.

(ends)

Notes to Editors

1. The Pensions Ombudsman was established by Act of Parliament to determine disputes of fact or law relating to occupational and personal pension schemes. The Ombudsman is appointed by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions but thereafter acts independently of Government.

2. The current Ombudsman is David Laverick. He was appointed on 1 September 2001 and retires in August 2007.

For Annual Report click here

Avoid the Pensions Ombudsman – but gain an advantage if he does become involved
23 November 2005

Pensions Ombudsman, David Laverick, has urged all involved in the sale administration and provision of pensions to react positively if members of Pension Schemes refer disputes to his office.


Speaking at the launch of a new publication, How to avoid the Pensions Ombudsman David Laverick stressed that Trustees of Pension Schemes should themselves act as the Scheme’s Ombudsman when complaints are made to the Scheme and thus avoid the need for him to be formally involved.


How to avoid the Pensions Ombudsman, is based on the experience of the office since its inception and highlights principles and practices which have at times failed to be properly applied and have thus led to criticism from the Pensions Ombudsman.

Stephen Timms, Minister for Pension Reform welcomed the publication and underlined the need for general lessons to be learned from the work of the Ombudsman’s office.


(ends)



Further Information can be obtained from the Pensions Ombudsman on 020 7630 2207 or on our website www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk