Pensions Ombudsman determination

Social Housing Pension Scheme · CAS-33005-D7J3

Complaint not upheld2021
Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

Verbatim text of this Pensions Ombudsman determination. Sourced directly from the Pensions Ombudsman published register. The Pensions Ombudsman is a statutory tribunal — its determinations are public record. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase.

Full determination

CAS-33005-D7J3

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr T

Scheme Social Housing Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents TPT Retirement Solutions (TPT)

The Trustees of the Social Housing Pension Scheme (the Trustee)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-33005-D7J3

2 CAS-33005-D7J3

1 The ‘Risk Alert’ is a document from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which offers non-mandatory guidance on subjects of relevance to areas of finance where actuarial input is appropriate. The ‘Risk Alert’ in this case relates to pension commutation factors, which should be kept current in respect of increasing longevity and falling bond yields. 3 CAS-33005-D7J3

4 CAS-33005-D7J3

5 CAS-33005-D7J3

6 CAS-33005-D7J3

7 CAS-33005-D7J3

• Option 1 Full pension of £9,470.80, 100% survivor’s pension, no PCLS.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

8 CAS-33005-D7J3

Mr T did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr T provided his further comments which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note the additional points raised by Mr T, which are summarised below as follows:-

• There are two elements to his complaint:-

o Whether the formula used for converting pension into cash and the ratio of 26:1 for a transfer value compared to 15.3:1 for a PCLS is unreasonable.

o The second issue is the proportion of the pension given up to produce a PCLS, which Mr T calculates at 31% of the pension being given up to fund the PCLS whereas he would have expected 25%. He does not believe this can be right.

Mr T also said that:-

• The Adjudicator’s figures used in paragraphs 17, 20 and 35 of her Opinion were irrelevant because he had used figures excluding the effect of the survivor’s pension.

• He expected more weight to have been given to the Institute of Actuaries’ Risk Alert.

• The issues raised potentially affect many prospective pensioners.

Ombudsman’s decision

9 CAS-33005-D7J3

I do not uphold Mr T’s complaint.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 24 May 2021

10