Simply Tiles Ltd Directors Pension Scheme (PO-12332)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Complaint summary

Miss A has complained that the Trustees failed to properly consider her rights, and those of her sisters, when exercising discretion in relation to the Scheme death benefits following the death of their father (Mr M).Complaint Summary

Miss A says that while the nomination form (the EoW), which the Trustees are relying on was completed in 2004, and signed by Mr M, the original nomination details were not completed by him. Miss A says her uncle, the deceased’s brother (Mr S), later changed the nomination in his favour and initialled the changes.

Miss A also says there is no evidence that Mr M was aware of the change in the nomination, or even of the original nomination. Miss A says that the Trustees’ decision to award the death benefit to Mr S is perverse. Further, that the period since Mr M’s death has been marked by persistent maladministration by the Professional Trustee and the Administrator, causing substantial delay and distress.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Trustees of the Scheme as the previous decision was improperly made because they failed to take into account all relevant factors such as:

• the circumstances and manner in which the EoW was completed are such that it makes the EoW invalid and the Trustees should not have relied on it when making their decision; and
• the Trustees did not consider what Mr M’s wishes would have been shortly before his death and when approving his Will.

The sequence of events and specific unusual circumstances in this case have led me to conclude that the only appropriate and fair way in which to deal with the matter is for me to now make the distribution decision. I do so by directing that 75% of the Scheme assets attributable to Mr M are to be paid, in equal shares, to Miss A and her two sisters. The remaining 25% of Mr M’s assets are to be paid to Mr S.

There was also an inordinate delay in reaching a decision which could have been avoided if there had been a more robust process adopted by AJ Bell Limited and the Professional Trustee, including direct discussion with the lay Trustees. This may now result in a tax liability being payable and, if so, this should be borne by the Scheme but only after the above distribution has been made.

The complaint should also be upheld against AJ Bell Limited in its capacity as an administrator (carrying out acts of administration in relation to the Scheme), for persistent maladministration, including the delay and a failure to have an appropriate process to identify and remedy the flaws in procedure which took place in this case.

I direct AJ Bell Limited to pay £6,000 to Miss A and her two sisters, divided into equal shares, for the exceptional distress and inconvenience this has caused them.