Recommendations & Conclusions
5 items
3
Recommendation
Fifty-Seventh Report - AEA Technology P…
Deferred
The AEAT case shows that there are gaps in the routes of appeal available for people raising complaints about their pensions. It is a fundamental right that 6 AEA Technology Pension Case people have appropriate and accessible routes of appeal. Ombudsman services provide a way for people to seek independent …
Read more
The AEAT case shows that there are gaps in the routes of appeal available for people raising complaints about their pensions. It is a fundamental right that 6 AEA Technology Pension Case people have appropriate and accessible routes of appeal. Ombudsman services provide a way for people to seek independent review of their complaints without the cost of pursuing action through the courts. In this case, ombudsman services such as the Pensions Ombudsman and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) ruled that they could not examine key complaints raised by AEAT pension scheme members because the complaints fall outside their statutory jurisdictions. For example, PHSO is unable to look into employment matters, including specifically those relating superannuation and pensions, due to its remit. Legislative amendments would be required to change this. Some aspects may have been within the remit of the Pensions Ombudsman but, because the case was more than 15 years old, the ombudsman would have been unable to award any remedy due to the Limitation Act 1980. Government protocols for retaining data may also often prevent relevant information being maintained for long enough to be reviewed in cases involving pensions. Pensions are long-term financial products, and problems can take many years to become apparent. Recommendations 3: The government should review ombudsman arrangements to ensure that all aspects of people’s interactions with their pensions have an adequate route of appeal. We also ask that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee consider examining whether the current time limits on government for retaining information and ombudsmen awarding redress are fit for purpose when it comes to pensions.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government deflects the recommendation, stating that the request for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to consider time limits is a matter for that Committee. It does not address the recommendation to review ombudsman arrangements.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
13
Conclusion
Fifty-Seventh Report - AEA Technology P…
Deferred
It is a fundamental right that people should have appropriate and accessible routes of appeal. Actions by government bodies are in principle subject to judicial review through the courts, but this is an expensive process.25 Ombudsman services provide a way for people to seek independent review of their complaints without …
Read more
It is a fundamental right that people should have appropriate and accessible routes of appeal. Actions by government bodies are in principle subject to judicial review through the courts, but this is an expensive process.25 Ombudsman services provide a way for people to seek independent review of their complaints without the cost of pursuing action through the courts. They are independent statutory organisations set up to make final decisions on complaints that cannot be resolved. Where they make a decision in favour of the complainant, they can typically award or recommend redress.26
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and will conduct an independent review of The Pensions Ombudsman in Autumn 2024, noting the department can request consideration of other relevant areas during this review.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
14
Conclusion
Fifty-Seventh Report - AEA Technology P…
Deferred
In the case of the AEAT pension scheme, relevant ombudsman services said they were unable to properly investigate key aspects of scheme members complaints.27 Some aspects of the case could be reviewed. For example, GAD described to us how complaints about work done by individual actuaries who are members of …
Read more
In the case of the AEAT pension scheme, relevant ombudsman services said they were unable to properly investigate key aspects of scheme members complaints.27 Some aspects of the case could be reviewed. For example, GAD described to us how complaints about work done by individual actuaries who are members of the actuarial profession can be raised through disciplinary and complaints processes of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the Financial Reporting Council.28 The Pensions Ombudsman reviewed the approach taken by scheme trustees when the company went into administration in 2012, and PHSO examined DWP’s 2013 factsheet for scheme members.29 But none of these organisations has examined the information that government provided in 1996, with the ombudsman services saying it is outside their statutory jurisdictions.30
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and will conduct an independent review of The Pensions Ombudsman in Autumn 2024, noting the department can request consideration of other relevant areas during this review.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
Fifty-Seventh Report - AEA Technology P…
Deferred
PHSO described to us the gaps in its remit which prevent it from providing pension scheme members with a route to appeal in this case or in similar situations. PHSO explained that its jurisdiction only allows it to investigate GAD on a very specific point about insurance companies during a …
Read more
PHSO described to us the gaps in its remit which prevent it from providing pension scheme members with a route to appeal in this case or in similar situations. PHSO explained that its jurisdiction only allows it to investigate GAD on a very specific point about insurance companies during a defined period of time, following an amendment to its legislation that allowed it to investigate the Equitable Life pensions case. Apart from this, Schedule 3 of PHSO’s legislation prevents it from looking into personnel and superannuation matters which means it cannot examine information of the type that GAD provided in 1996. An amendment would be needed to the legislation for PHSO to able to look into the AEAT case or similar issues and have powers to make recommendations to government.31
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the observation, stating that The Pensions Ombudsman will undergo an independent review in 2024, during which the department can request consideration of additional areas, without committing to amend PHSO's legislation.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
16
Conclusion
Fifty-Seventh Report - AEA Technology P…
Deferred
The Pensions Ombudsman may also be a suitable body to investigate the administration and management of pension schemes, as it is the expert in government for investigating pensions complaints.32 However, it has no remit over the role of GAD in providing information to scheme members. The Pensions Ombudsman could in …
Read more
The Pensions Ombudsman may also be a suitable body to investigate the administration and management of pension schemes, as it is the expert in government for investigating pensions complaints.32 However, it has no remit over the role of GAD in providing information to scheme members. The Pensions Ombudsman could in theory have examined UKAEA as the outgoing employer, but not AEAT itself as it no longer existed. However, it decided that even if it did investigate information provided by UKAEA, the Limitation Act 1980 means it would not be able to award any remedy as more 25 Qq 47–48 26 C&AG’s Report, para 3.8 27 C&AG’s Report, para 16 28 Qq 8–9 29 Qq 50, 56; C&AG’s Report, para 3.9 30 C&AG’s Report, para 3.10 31 Qq 41–45 32 Qq 9, 74 12 AEA Technology Pension Case than 15 years had passed between the original transfer of pension benefits and when the complaints were made.33 Government protocols for retaining data may also often prevent relevant information being maintained for long enough to be reviewed in cases involving pensions. Pensions are long-term financial products, and problems can take many years to become apparent.34 DWP told us that the Pensions Ombudsman is reviewed on a regular basis, and that its next review later this year may be a good opportunity to look at the role of the ombudsman.35 Government support for complex financial decisions
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and will conduct an independent review of The Pensions Ombudsman in Autumn 2024, stating the department can request the reviewer considers other areas that would benefit from their consideration.
Read full response →
HM Treasury