Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

towag

Do you have a section 32 buy out policy from Aviva (Norwich Union) that should have paid you a pension by now?
Have Aviva told you there are "insufficient funds" citing condition 7 (in my case) to secure a pension before GMP date?
Are Aviva using it as an "interpretation" to opt out of paying these pensions from the retirement date as originally specified in your policy?
They are in your NU illustrations and Aviva annual bonus packs (If you received and kept them).
A positive determination from the Pension Ombudsman Service (POS) has upheld a complaint by Mr Anthony Harris and he will get his pension backdated to his 60th birthday... You can find it online on their website under "Decisions" Put PO-2269 in search and his determination will come up...
I have been in contact with Mr Harris and he has been very helpful. I have to take my hat off to him for his determination in succeeding against Aviva...
I am now in the process of reopening my complaint to Aviva to see if they will relent or I have to go via the same POS route.
Aviva, it seems, are very keen to be seen helping their clients and customers so it would be interesting to see if they treat all NU section 32 policy holders in the same negative manner...
I would be very interested to hear if anyone else has had success in getting their Aviva/NU section 32 payout from age 60...

dunstonh

it would be interesting to see if they treat all NU section 32 policy holders in the same negative manner...

I doubt there will be a blanket ruling as they had so many versions over the years and Harris got lucky due to a sentence missing. In the unlikely event of all versions having that sentence missing, then it should apply to all. However, I doubt that will be the case.

towag

I've had a good look at a policy copy Anthony Harris kindly sent me and compared it to my own, They stated condition 7 as being their cop out by their interpretation... The same as mine, so it would be of interest to see what other policy holders have to say....
Thanks for your interest though...

persistancepaysoff

During my 5 years of pursuing my complaint the issue of a sentence missing never came up from any source.- Aviva, PAS or POS.

What is this sentence? Surely if it is missing it does not exist!

It is quite possible that Aviva eventually rewrote their Section 32 policies. In this case any one taking such a policy out would be clearly informed of the risks and would not now have a valid cause to complain.

In the meantime I strongly advise anyone with a Norwich Union (Aviva) policy worded as mine to complain to Aviva and be paid as per the policy.

Should anyone wish to contact me direct for advise - my e mail is antnorm@yahoo.com

dunstonh

During my 5 years of pursuing my complaint the issue of a sentence missing never came up from any source.- Aviva, PAS or POS.

What is this sentence? Surely if it is missing it does not exist!

They were relying on generic product information and the POS disagreed as it wasn't documented. A sentence would have covered them.

towag

dunstonh wrote: »

They were relying on generic product information and the POS disagreed as it wasn't documented. A sentence would have covered them.

But they didn't did they!!.... Was that due to the times when these policies were offered and taken out, when "with profit" pension funds were doing really well and their later high expectations was to yield a much better outcome?
In other words a form of gambling which hasn't come off for Aviva when and after they took over?
People took these policies out to safe guard their futures and it hasn't happened...
Does that gives Aviva the "right" to leave all their section 32 holders high and dry till they're 65? Because they didn't exactly bother to recheck these policies when they were set in stone so to speak?... I would hazard a good guess policy holders were all told that it was all safe as houses and you would have no worries when you reached pension age....
Aviva, now a world wide giant, (probably worth trillions!!) have tried their best to keep it as quiet as long as they have done, but when people start to get really pi**ed off, its surprising how that can be the catalyst that will come to bite them back in the rear end.
Five years of a denied income, rightly expected by policy holders, can accumulate to quite a sum!!
The more this comes out into the public domain the better. I would urge all those with section 32 policies, no matter what companies they were taken out with, to read and reread their policies, as they might be pleasantly shocked, surprised and likely angry if they aren't getting the pensions promised at the benefit date stated...

dunstonh

Does that gives Aviva the "right" to leave all their section 32 holders high and dry till they're 65? Because they didn't exactly bother to recheck these policies when they were set in stone so to speak?

yes it does if its in the T&C and that is the default position you would expect with any Section 32 buy out bond regardless of provider.

I suspect many policies taken out 20-30-40 years ago would have flaws in their T&C by modern standards. A lot of policy wording was developed over time based on issues as they arose.

Personally, I was surprised with the POS decision. I felt the FOS outcome was more in line with expectation. If a pension T&C didnt say that the person could take 25% tax free from their pension, does that mean they can take more than that tax free? Well, if you apply the POS train of thought, they could.

towag

dunstonh wrote: »

They were relying on generic product information and the POS disagreed as it wasn't documented. A sentence would have covered them.

dunstonh wrote: »

yes it does if its in the T&C and that is the default position you would expect with any Section 32 buy out bond regardless of provider.

I suspect many policies taken out 20-30-40 years ago would have flaws in their T&C by modern standards. A lot of policy wording was developed over time based on issues as they arose.

Personally, I was surprised with the POS decision. I felt the FOS outcome was more in line with expectation. If a pension T&C didnt say that the person could take 25% tax free from their pension, does that mean they can take more than that tax free? Well, if you apply the POS train of thought, they could.

Is that why Aviva put in their rebuttal replies to send complaints via the FOS and not the PAS and POS?....

dunstonh

towag wrote: »

Is that why Aviva put in their rebuttal replies to send complaints via the FOS and not the PAS and POS?....

With retail schemes, the normal response is to refer to the FOS. The PAS is not applicable.

We have this rather daft situation where some schemes can straddle two systems. Equally daft that the two bodies came out with different outcomes.

towag

dunstonh wrote: »

With retail schemes, the normal response is to refer to the FOS. The PAS is not applicable.

We have this rather daft situation where some schemes can straddle two systems. Equally daft that the two bodies came out with different outcomes.

With respect, it seems obvious to me that a section 32 IS a pension plan and not retail like car or home insurance. The logical thing would be to approach the PAS or POS wouldn't it?

DaveMcG

towag - s32s were regulated investments post 1988, so are in the FOS remit.

Occupational schemes weren't specifically regulated under the various financial services Acts.

The PO area is when the issue is an administrative one although it is a regulated pension policy. There is obviously a lot of potential for overlap between the Ombudsmen in this area.