In Pensions Ombudsman round-up, we report on some recent determinations made by the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) and Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO), and provide statistics on the outcomes of complaints and the range of awards made for distress and inconvenience.
- The first two cases concern the provision of incorrect information and demonstrate factors that can cause an Applicant's claim to fail. In the first case, it was held to be unreasonable for the Applicant to rely on the incorrect information given that she was aware that it conflicted with a previous benefit statement. In the second case, the amounts involved were too small for it to be concluded that they would have changed the member's decision to retire.
- The third case concerns a failure to provide information about a Guaranteed Annuity Rate to a member considering retirement options and demonstrates the importance of administrators (and trustees) understanding the options offered by the scheme.
- The fourth case concerns an application for ill-health retirement and demonstrates some of the mistakes that can be made when considering applications.
- In June the PO issued a factsheet providing guidance about redress for applicants for non-financial injustice. This suggested that awards for distress and inconvenience may increase and also seemed to suggest that the number of cases in which awards are made could fall. In this newsletter we therefore report more generally on recent awards for distress and inconvenience and how these fit with the June guidance.
Read our Pensions Ombudsman round-up: November 2015