Welcome to the latest edition of DLA Piper's Pensions Ombudsman Round-Up newsletter in which 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 case concerns errors in calculating benefits, overpayments and late payment and demonstrates how a lack of evidence to substantiate claims of reliance and investment loss can lead to complaints being rejected.
- The next two cases concern the duty on employers to provide information but each considers a different aspect of this issue. One case concerns the extent to which the employer has a duty of care to provide information about the tax implications of re-employment when the member has a protected pension age. The other case concerns the duty to draw certain contractual rights to an employee’s attention and also looks at the question of time limits for bringing complaints.
- The fourth case concerns ill health retirement and demonstrates the correct approach to take when assessing whether the member’s ill health is permanent.
- As well as being the PO, Anthony Arter is also the Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman. The fifth case considered in this newsletter is a determination which he issued in this capacity in November. The case relates to an appeal by a scheme trustee against the PPF’s decision to only partly waive interest on the late payment of the PPF levy.
Read our Pensions Ombudsman round-up: January 2016