Mr N had appealed the decision of the Board of the PPF to reduce his FAS benefits going forward. He also believed that some elements of his pension benefits were omitted from the FAS calculations and as a result, his asset share was affected.
We did not uphold his appeal as we found that his FAS benefits had been correctly calculated in accordance with the FAS Regulations (the Regulations). We also explained that only the defined benefit element of Mr N’s pension was transferred to the FAS. Therefore, the FAS would not have included any additional voluntary contribution or money purchase benefits when it calculated his asset share.
In his submissions, Mr N had raised a number of issues that the Ombudsman could not consider. This is because the PPF Ombudsman is an appeals body and as such he can only consider if the individual’s FAS benefits were calculated in accordance with the Regulations. He could not consider any complaints of maladministration against the FAS.
Related case studies
Mrs L complained that the NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) had not considered her application for permanent injury benefit (PIB) correctly.
Mr D was a member of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund. In 2016, Mr D began exploring how the trustee of the Fund was measuring and managing the potential risk of climate change. Mr D was given the opportunity to meet with the trustee, but the meeting did not eradicate his concerns.