Pension Protection Fund · CAS-61876-D1D1

CAS-61876-D1D1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr N

Scheme The Pension Protection Fund (PPF)

Respondent The Board of the Pension Protection Fund (the Board)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the salient points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

1 CAS-61876-D1D1

2 CAS-61876-D1D1

On 8 October 2020, the PPF’s Director of Member Services partially upheld Mr N’s complaint. She confirmed that Mr N’s PPF compensation had received revaluation increases since the assessment date and that it had calculated that the estimated PPF compensation due to him at age 55 was £9,949. She acknowledged that the August 2020 letter was potentially confusing and incomplete, and that Mr N had initially been given incorrect information on 25 August 2020. She accepted that the service provided was below the level that Mr N should have received and said his comments had been shared with the relevant teams to ensure that similar errors did not occur in the future. She noted Mr N’s comment that he could have potentially planned his retirement based on the misleading information if he had not queried the figures. She said while she understood the concern and inconvenience the matter had caused him, the mistake had been corrected as soon as the PPF became aware of it. The PPF could only pay Mr N the benefits that he was entitled to in line with the PPF’s governing legislation.

3 CAS-61876-D1D1

1 Section 208 (2) of the Pensions Act 2004.

4 CAS-61876-D1D1

5 CAS-61876-D1D1

Adjudicator’s Opinion

6 CAS-61876-D1D1

Mr N said the information on the PPF website was incorrect and misleading. But the PPF had explained and provided Mr N with the revaluation increases that had been applied to his PPF compensation since the assessment date.

Mr N said the PPF employee who notified him of the mistake was “extremely rude”. The PPF had apologised to Mr N and had given its assurance that the matter had been dealt with internally.

Mr N said the time the matter had taken showed that the PPF was a shambles. The Adjudicator’s view was that the PPF had responded to each stage of his complaint in a timely manner.

Mr N did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr N has provided no further comments and I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision For the reasons given by the Adjudicator, I agree that the conditions for a successful claim for either negligent misstatement, or estoppel or contract are not met

For me to uphold a complaint, it is not simply the case that I must identify maladministration; I must also be satisfied that the individual has, as a result, 7 CAS-61876-D1D1 sustained injustice. Injustice may be financial and/or non-financial. The provision of incorrect information by the PPF clearly amounts to maladministration. But this was quickly corrected, and Mr N took no action in reliance on it.

The Board has offered Mr N £250 for its poor service. As the Adjudicator explained my awards for non-financial injustice start at £500 for significant distress and inconvenience. I do not consider that the threshold for an award of £500 is passed. If Mr N now wants to accept the Board’s offer of £250, he should contact the PPF directly.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Protection Fund Ombudsman 24 May 2022

8