Pension company misled me

[Clamball]

I do think on the basis of what you said that there was misleading information given to you. But I think in this thread you have already given two overlapping reasons for the delay in the marriage.

A major factor in these decisions was a glossy "bespoke" brochure supplied to me that stated unambiguously that should I marry before I retire and then die, my wife would get half my pension.

basically because I knew I was going to be made redundant, I put my life on hold including my forthcoming marriage.

It would have seemed very prudent to postpone when you were not earning at the time. But if you had already made bookings there would be cancellation clauses and fees.

You also may have been acutely aware of the impact of marriage and your wife’s pension entitlements as it sounds as if your life expectancy is shorter than average (very sorry to hear that)

. I suppose I don't expect myself to live to retirement.

So your case to the FSPO should be based on the facts and the evidence that you can produce.

Can you prove you cancelled a planned wedding.
Can you demonstrate the pension information given to you then informed your decision. (Did you email it to your girlfriend and say, see what they say here, it won’t impact your pension if we delay getting married).
Can you show that your potential shorter life span influenced your thinking about ensuring your spouse would not loose out on you pension if you were not around.

If you can prove a direct link to your actions from this brochure, and the factors you took into account to postpone the wedding, then I do think you have a case. Whether that is 100% or 20% you will have to make your best estimate. If you were influenced 50% by the brochure, and you anticipate your wife will live 20 years beyond you, then you can propose a figure based on your model.

 

[Fortune]

I suppose I don't expect myself to live to retirement.

I wonder would it be wise to take a transfer value from the DB scheme to a DC scheme or a PRB/BOB which would be able to provide benefits to a spouse/dependants on death?

 

[TomEdison]

I wonder would it be wise to take a transfer value from the DB scheme to a DC scheme or a PRB/BOB which would be able to provide benefits to a spouse/dependants on death?

It might well be. But of course, as matters stand, the transfer value offered will be based on the value of entitlement to a pension for the OP only, and will not include the value of an entitlement to a survivor's pension for the OP's wife. So the OP should resolve the dispute over his entitlements on the best terms he can before taking a transfer value.

 

[T McGibney]

"My partner and I postponed a major life decision on foot of a blurb on an occupational pension statement I received. I never bothered to research or corroborate what it said even though I knew it was a very important matter. I now want the pensions company to compensate for my mistake."

The OP hasn't a shadow of a case.

 

[misemoi]

If I was the pension company, I would argue that there was no need to postpone the marriage due to redundancy....an expensive wedding postponement would be prudent yes, due to the potential costs and uncertainty, but a legal marriage would have been possible for a very small fee. A religious ceremony or a civil one would be similar in costs if a simple ceremony. Be prepared to argue against that if needed.

 

[llgon]

The OP hasn't a shadow of a case.

The fact that he has been offered €3,500 would suggest otherwise, would it not?

 

[T McGibney]

Not necessarily. They'd probably prefer to give it to him as a gesture of goodwill than give more to their lawyers. I'd grab it with both hands if I were him.

 

[TomEdison]

"My partner and I postponed a major life decision on foot of a blurb on an occupational pension statement I received . . .

This wasn't a "blurb"; it was a benefit statement, which is a document to be taken very seriously indeed, and on which a scheme member should be entitled to expect he can rely. And (we don't know this) if it was a benefit statement given to the OP in the context of his impending redundancy and the choices he might make, it becomes all the more serious.

There's a whole host of facts we simply don't know yet (not least, what else might have been said in the benefit statement) so I'm not saying that this is an open and shut case. But we do have an extract from a benefit statement produced by the scheme administrators which is not just ambiguous or unclear; it's simply wrong. There's a whole body of law on negligent misrepresentation and the remedies available for it; this looks, on the face of it, like a classic negligent misrepresentation.

 

[BIG-notorious]

The fact that he has been offered €3,500 would suggest otherwise, would it not?

The term is "nuisance value"...

 

[JoeRoberts]

The Ombudsman upheld Charlotte’s complaint that she was given misleading information by her employer but noted that the Office could only direct a pension provider to correct the financial loss experienced by a member under a scheme. However, the employer had made an offer of an ex-gratia payment of €500 to Charlotte, which was still open for her to accept. The Ombudsman also referred the decision to the Pensions Authority for any action it found necessary.


Above was the decision OP referenced earlier. The Fspo accepted there was misrepresentation ( it was about a tax free lump sum they had erroneously made reference to in a letter to the complianant) but the Fspo seem to indicate that they will only intervene when there is a loss suffered under the terms of the scheme. ( I guess an example may be if someone was not actually being paid the correct pension under the scheme rules). You have not suffered a loss under the terms of the scheme so likely a similar answer will follow. Will the 3500 still be available as an offer after the Fspo decision comes out or is it dependent on dropping the case now ?