Recommendation 3

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.