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
Ms N was a member of the Tesla Motors Limited Pension Scheme. Ms N raised a complaint because her employer had failed to pay employee and employer contributions into the Scheme.
Mrs Y is a member of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. She decided to transfer her benefits to an overseas scheme in Australia. There had been two recent changes made to legislation that affected Mrs Y’s right to transfer.