Sirdar Plc Retirement Benefits Plan (1974) PO-16366 (PO-16366)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint Summary

Mr G’s complaint against the respondents is in three main parts:-

The provision of incorrect information and delays caused by the Administrator in relation to both sections of the Scheme.

Delays in the transfer of his benefits, from the defined contribution section of the Scheme, to a separate scheme with Legal & General.

• The Company and Trustees’ decision not to consent to early payment of benefits with no reduction from age 60 from the defined benefit section of the Scheme.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint is not upheld against the Company or the Financial Adviser, but it is upheld in part against the Administrator and Trustees for the following reasons:-

• The Administrator was at fault on several occasions, but was appointed by the Trustees and acted on their behalf, so I also hold the Trustees responsible for its actions.
• The Financial Adviser advised the Trustees in finding an alternative scheme for the purpose of winding up the defined contribution section of the Scheme. This Office has no jurisdiction in respect of the provision of this service. The Financial Adviser also monitored the transfer of funds from the defined contribution section of the Scheme to the recommended buy-out Scheme, but in this respect no administrative errors were identified.
• The Company is not at fault for inaccuracies or delays in the provision of information to Mr G in respect of his benefits under either section of the Scheme. Nor is it responsible for incorrectly transferring Mr G’s benefits under the defined contribution section of the Scheme to the separate Legal & General scheme.
• The Trustees are ultimately responsible for the inaccurate information which Mr G received regarding his benefits in the defined benefit section of the Scheme. Therefore, they shall pay him £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience he has suffered.
• The Trustees are also ultimately responsible for delays transferring of Mr G’s benefits under the defined contribution section of the Scheme to the separate Legal & General scheme. So, they shall provide redress to Mr G for any loss of investment growth associated with this delay, and a further £500 for significant distress and inconvenience caused to Mr G.
• There is no fault on the part of the Company or Trustees in respect of Mr G’s reduction of benefits from the defined benefits section. Mr G cannot receive such benefits without actuarial reduction from age 60, as the Trustees’ and Company’s consent is required and consent has not been given. Even if there had been no delay and Mr G had been able to begin taking benefits from the defined benefit section in around June 2016, it is likely consent would not have been given due to the Scheme’s funding deficit. So, I do not find that Mr G has suffered a loss of benefits under the defined benefits section.