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 S was a member of the HSBC Bank (UK) Pension Scheme. She retired on the grounds of incapacity in 1999 and had been in receipt of a pension. The pension was subject to periodic review, and Mrs S was notified that her pension would be reduced.
Mr N made a referral of a reviewable matter to the PPF Ombudsman in relation to an entitlement to enhanced early retirement benefits.