Skip to main content

Land Rover Pension Scheme (PO-22661)

Complainant: Mr S
Complaint Topic: Benefits: incorrect calculation
Ref: PO-22661
Outcome: Partly upheld
Respondent: 1. Jaguar Land Rover
2. Jaguar Land Rover Pension Trustees Ltd
Type: Pension complaint or dispute
Appeal: No

Ombudsman’s Determination


Mr S’ complaint against JLR and the Trustee is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld) JLR shall award Mr S £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience which he has experienced dealing with this matter.

Furthermore, if Mr S decides to choose the backdated pension option, JLR should also pay him interest on the outstanding instalments of his pension and tax-free cash lump sum, if appropriate. The interest referred to above shall be calculated at the base rate for the time being quoted by the Bank of England.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr S complains that JLR:

  • failed to pay him the total amount held in his Lifestyle Account* (LSA) of £84,224.62 on a timely basis when he left JLR on 8 November 2017;
  • provided the Trustee in December 2017 with an incorrect lower final pensionable salary figure of £51,682.20 to calculate the deferred benefits available to him from the Scheme; and
  • after paying the LSA amount to him in May 2018, supplied the Trustee with a revised final pensionable salary figure of £55,202.60 pa which was still incorrect as it only allowed for part of what was held in the LSA for use when recalculating his benefits.

*Further details on the LSA may be found in the Appendix below.

Mr S also contends that:

  1. the P45 which JLR sent him in November 2017 should have included the LSA amount of £84,224.62;
  2. the calculation date of his deferred benefits should be 30 May 2018 when JLR eventually paid the LSA amount to him and not his date of leaving (DOL) the Scheme, 8 November 2017; and
  3. he should have remained an employee of JLR and received his full salary until 30 May 2018.

To the extent that the matters raised in paragraph 5 constitute a dispute about the duration of Mr S’s employment and the correctness or otherwise of the P45 which was issued to him, these are employment issues between Mr S and JLR which are outside of my jurisdiction and cannot be investigated by me. I have therefore not considered these issues in my Determination.



View determination


Related decisions