Pension company misled me

[TomEdison]

See post #30 extract from Fspo website. I can't link ATM. Very similar type claim.

I saw that. What I'm looking for is the actual case report from which that extract is taken. Can you give me a case name or number so I can find it on the FSPP website? (They don't offer a facility to search the full text of case reports.)

 

[ClubMan]

See post #30 extract from Fspo website.

Pension company misled me

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...

www.askaboutmoney.com

 

[T McGibney]

It took me 2 seconds on Google to find it.

https://www.fspo.ie/documents/Overview-of-Complaints-2021.pdf Pages no 57 & 58.

 

[TomEdison]

Thanks, Tom.

It's as I suspected. In Charlotte's case, confusing representations were made to her after she left the scheme about her retained entitlements in the scheme. As a result of the confusion she then made decisions in relation to her then current employment with (obviously) a different employer which, she argued, she would not have made if she had not been confused about her retained entitlement. The decision she made didn't affect here entitlements under her former pension scheme; she got what she was entitled to from that scheme and there was no decision she could have made that would have resulted in her getting more from that scheme.

This is different. Inaccurate representations were made to the OP while he was still a member of the scheme and, affected by those representations, he made decisions which adversely affected his entitlements under that scheme.

 

[TomEdison]

Thanks, Tom.

It's as I suspected. In Charlotte's case, confusing representations were made to her after she left the scheme about her retained entitlements in the scheme. As a result of the confusion she then made decisions in relation to her then current employment with (obviously) a different employer which, she argued, she would not have made if she had not been confused about her retained entitlement. The decision she made didn't affect here entitlements under her former pension scheme; she got what she was entitled to from that scheme and there was no decision she could have made that would have resulted in her getting more from that scheme.

This is different. Inaccurate representations were made to the OP while he was still a member of the scheme and, affected by those representations, he made decisions which adversely affected his entitlements under that scheme.

 

[JoeRoberts]

but noted that the Office could only direct a pension provider to correct the financial loss experienced by a member under a scheme.


The OP has no financial loss under the scheme. He will receive his entitlements in accordance with the scheme rules.

The Fspo considers pension complaints different to all other financial services.
From their 2024 report...

When dealing with complaints against pension providers, the Ombudsman’s powers under the legislation are different. The Ombudsman can direct rectification, rather than compensation. This means that any value awarded to the complainant shall not be more than the actual loss of benefit under the pension scheme.

The only way the claim could be rectified would be for the scheme to be forced to change its rules to allow the OP have a dependent pension. That to me would be beyond the powers of the Fspo but let's see. The scheme is a trust, not a commercial concern like a bank.

 

[TomEdison]

He does have a financial loss under the scheme. It's true that he will receive his entitlements in accordance with the scheme rules, but under those same rules his entitlements would have been larger if he had married before leaving service. Since he's getting a smaller entitlement than he could have got under the rules, that's a loss under the scheme.

(Consider this hypothetical: X asks if he can pay additional voluntary contributions to the scheme. He is told that this is not allowed, and so does not make any AVCs. In fact he has been misinformed; the scheme rules do allow AVCs, the necessary arrangements are in place and other members do pay AVCs. But he doesn't find this out until after he has retired. In such a case he would receive his full entitlement under the rules but he would also have suffered a signficant loss and it is unthinkable that he would not get redress for that.)

The issues in this case will be causation (was the loss caused by the misrepresentation made to him?) and, if the loss was caused by the misrepresentation, remoteness (Is the loss too remote from the misrepresentation for the administrators to be liable for it?).

 

[JoeRoberts]

The issues in this case will be causation (was the loss caused by the misrepresentation made to him?) and, if the loss was caused by the misrepresentation, remoteness (Is the loss too remote from the misrepresentation for the administrators to be liable for it?).

Plus whether it was reasonable for him to rely on that clumsy wording in his annual statement without checking out the rules of the scheme properly. He would have received other scheme documents such as the handbook.
All above would of course be considered in a court case. I just don't see that the Fspo will take it on as they are issues that occurred outside the scheme itself. He is getting his full entitlements under the rules of the scheme. Furthermore, as he is still alive, no loss has crystallised and may never do.