Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

M_j_t

I believe that I'm just about to try Aviva out. Currently the situation is that I have an S32, I have received the "about 10 weeks before Benefit Date" pack/letter.

I have been given 3 options 1) buy annuity yourself, 2) Take as cash or as flexible income (plan doesn't allow) or 3) leave the money where it is, with the If we don't hear from you we'll set the retirement date to 75.

As such I see it as they are intending to not enact/apply the plan at Benefit Date as set out in Section 7

Section 7 Application of the capital Sum

At the Benefit Date or the Substitute Benefit Date so much of the Capital Sum as shall be appropriate shall be applied using the Society's then current annuity rates to purchase an immediate pension payable to the Insured equal to the Guaranteed Minimum Pension and a Widow's Pension payable on the death of the Insured to his Widow (if any) equal to the Guaranteed Minimum Widow's Pension. The balance of the Capital Sum shall be applied at the same date using the Society's then current rates to secure such Relevant Benefits as the Insured shall decide provided that :- (provisions omitted as I don't think they are relevant)

Now in 2013 (coincidentally whilst PO-2269 "Anthony Harris" was underway I did receive

I'm writing to tell you about the Section 32 Transfer pension plan you hold with us....

You may not have enough funds in your plan to allow you to take retirement benefits before age 65, even though your selected retirement age is 60.
If this is the case then we will write to you about 10 weeks before your normal retirement date to let you know.

I have received an "about 10 weeks to go" letter and this does not let me know in writing (perhaps it could be argued that it's implicit in that I've not been given the option), basically it just tells me the options (summarised above) and tells me the fund value and transfer value.

Additionally I did get a redress by way of an endorsement of a second plan, and I believe that this cannot be used by Aviva to fund the GMP aspect of the annuities.

So I spent most of today drafting a reply as follows :-

PLAN1 & PLAN2 Options at Benefit Date DD/MM/YYYY

I refer to your letter, to myself “the insured”, dated DD mmm YYYY and referenced as PS/Aviva/alpha/claim in regards to plan number PLAN1 & PLAN2.

PLAN1
In this letter you stress that it’s important that I consider my options and then mention options as:
a) Use the money to buy yourself an income for your lifetime (a pension annuity),
b) Take some of your money as and when you need it, either as cash sums or as flexible income (with a note saying that this option is not available) and
c) Leave your money where it is and make choices later.
However, to have the agreement enacted according to the agreement/contract/plan, has not been given or mentioned.
It is, and was, ever since I entered into the agreement, my desire that the contract be fulfilled. That fulfilment being, that on BENEFITDATE(the Benefit Date) the Capital Sum is used to:
a) Purchase an immediate pension payable to myself (the insured) equal to the Guaranteed Minimum Pension, which equates to £MINGMP.
b) Purchase a Widow’s Pension payable on my death to my widow (if one) equal to the Guaranteed Minimum Widow’s Pension, which equates to £WIDOWMINGMP.
and
c) That any surplus, the balance, be applied at the same date, i.e. BENEFITDATE to secure Relevant Benefits at current rates and according to the provisions as per 7(a), (b) and (c) of the plan.
 


PLAN2
There is another plan/endorsement, namely PLAN2 that has not been recognised as it should. That is, that it is for an amount based upon a redress . The application of this cannot rightfully be applied to the fulfilment of a) or b) as this would then be a redress to Aviva and not myself. That is, in the circumstance that Aviva had failed to correctly calculate the underlying matters that forecast the final Capital Sum resulting in a Capital Sum that were insufficient to meet the obligated purchases as set out in a) and b), then use of this redress amount or any part of it to purchase either a) or b) would benefit Aviva and disadvantage myself and thus nullify the redress of the personal loss or part thereof.
I believe that Aviva have failed in not providing distinct options for this plan and considering the business experience of Aviva arguably even acted to purposefully defraud myself in regard to not providing distinct options for plan PLAN2. As such I expect to be informed of the available options in regard to the endorsement amount, which I believe is £REDRESSAMOUNT, according to Bonus statements issued annually from 2001-2008 inclusive.


Attempt to unilaterally alter the contract (1)
I notice that a letter dated 26th March 2013 it states “You may not have enough funds in your plan to allow you to take retirement benefits before age 65, even though your retirement age is 60” the letter continues and makes an assurance “in this case, we will write to you about 10 weeks before your normal retirement date to let you know” that I will be notified “in about 10 weeks” (about dd mmm yyyy) before normal retirement date should the funds in the plan be insufficient. Considering the timescales involved, and “As there’s a lot to think about it’s really important that you consider your options to help decide what to do with your pension savings.” (dd mmm yyyy) and reasonability, that “about 10 weeks” is now in the past.

Furthermore, on a number of occasions in a section entitled “What happens next?”, such as in a letter dated ddth April 2015 and in another dated ddth April 2015, an assurance is made “Around 10 weeks before your retirement we will send you annuity quotations based upon the information you have given us”.

Although no quotations have actually been provided as assured, the letter dated dd mmm yyyy does provide one amount, that of £FUNDVALUE that is both the fund value and the transfer value. As such this letter is the only one that could be the assured “10 weeks before letter”, it does not let me know whether or not there are sufficient funds. However, as the assurance was that I would be told if insufficient funds were the case then it can only be reasonable to deduce that there are sufficient fund, according to the criteria and assurances in regard to enacting “What’s next?”.

However, a case of insufficient funds would in fact be moot as the contract entered into clearly obligates the provider with the provision of fulfilments a) and b) . The provider made the claim, be it directly or indirectly through another party, that they could deliver according to the contract. The provider had the chance and importantly the expertise to forecast a case of insufficient funds and provide a contract based upon that expertise to cover such an eventuality. In fact the entire contract is based upon the insured, myself, relying upon the aforementioned expertise, it is the very core of the contract.
 
Attempt to unilaterally alter the contract (2)
Moving back to the available options, the last “Leave your money where it is and make your choices later” you state “If we don’t hear from you we’ll set your new retirement date for when you’re 75”.

This again is an attempt to alter the contract unilaterally without mutual consent as required of contract law. The plan clearly indicates in sections 8 and 9 that a change to the benefit date is upon election by the insured, that is, myself. There is no scope in any of the clauses that allow for the provider to make such a change without the election of the insured.

Pursuant to the above I insist that:
1) The aforementioned annuities as per the original plan are enacted according to the original plan and therefore that I will receive the benefits from the agreed upon and contractual Benefit Date of BENEFITDATE and
2) I am given the options for plan PLAN2 and that this is treated with great urgency and
3) That the retirement date is not altered in any way without my consent.

I would greatly appreciate constructive comments/crticisms e.g. would it be better to exclude the blue text (along with modifying the demands) as perhaps mentioning "insufficient funds" could perhaps be disadvantageous assuming that this were to be taken to the Ombudsman.

WBCPB

M_j_t wrote: »

I believe that I'm just about to try Aviva out. Currently the situation is that I have an S32, I have received the "about 10 weeks before Benefit Date" pack/letter.

I have been given 3 options 1) buy annuity yourself, 2) Take as cash or as flexible income (plan doesn't allow) or 3) leave the money where it is, with the If we don't hear from you we'll set the retirement date to 75.

As such I see it as they are intending to not enact/apply the plan at Benefit Date as set out in Section 7

Now in 2013 (coincidentally whilst PO-2269 "Anthony Harris" was underway I did receive

I'm writing to tell you about the Section 32 Transfer pension plan you hold with us....

I have received an "about 10 weeks to go" letter and this does not let me know in writing (perhaps it could be argued that it's implicit in that I've not been given the option), basically it just tells me the options (summarised above) and tells me the fund value and transfer value.

Additionally I did get a redress by way of an endorsement of a second plan, and I believe that this cannot be used by Aviva to fund the GMP aspect of the annuities.

So I spent most of today drafting a reply as follows :-

I would greatly appreciate constructive comments/crticisms e.g. would it be better to exclude the blue text (along with modifying the demands) as perhaps mentioning "insufficient funds" could perhaps be disadvantageous assuming that this were to be taken to the Ombudsman.

I think that 10 week letter is what is called your "wake up pack" which they must send out by law,all VERY generic,if i was you i would just send a letter stating that you will look forward to receiving your pension benefits on your normal retirement date as per the ombudsman`s upheld decisions[ link to the 2 decisions in this thread],by doing this you are letting Aviva know that you know :rotfl: exactly what they should be doing both legally and ethically.I think they are in the process of writing to all affected customers,you may have been missed,this way you give them a gentle prod.

Regards

M_j_t

WBCPB wrote:

I think that 10 week letter is what is called your "wake up pack" which they must send out by law,all VERY generic,if i was you i would just send a letter stating that you will look forward to receiving your pension benefits on your normal retirement date as per the ombudsman`s upheld decisions

Wake-up, certainly has kept me up

Although I've amended it to include Ombudsman's decision. I believe I'd only have to complain again if I didn't also set some other things straight. Mainly considerations because of the redress endorsement.

That is, they could use that to purchase the two annuities. I want to warn them that they can't. It was provided for the losses that I sustained. If would reduce their losses and negate the redress if used for that. I believe that it should be placed directly into the balance remaining so I can secure "Relevant Benefits" with it.

However, I could then lose it due to sentences in Section 6/7

6. Selection of Options
An option shall be exercised or an election made by giving notice in writing to the Society during the Insured's lifetime and before any payment has been made under the Policy.

7. .......
The Balance of the Capital Sum shall be applied at the same date using the Society's then current rates to secure such Relevant Benefits.......

As I'm sort of giving them a get out of Jail Free Card I'm also going to ask for compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with what the Ombudsman would give.

Currently I've got this as the main part :-

Considering the Pension Ombudsman’s determinations in PO-2269, “Mr Anthony Harris” on 11th December 2014”, which covers a plan that appears to be the same, bar names, amounts and dates, it is my expectation that you abide by the plan by applying section 7, with some additional considerations, and thus that you;

a) Purchase an immediate pension for myself equal to the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (approximately xxxxx.xx), and that you;

b) Purchase a widows pension for my wife equal to the Widows Guaranteed Minimum Pension (approximately xxxx.xx increasing as per the plan annually) payable upon my death, and that you;

c) Provide the options for the balance so that I can decide what options I wish to elect, noting that the minimum amount must be xxxxx due to the redress amount held in plan ETNNNNNN, and that you;

d) Apply the provisions set out in Section 7 appropriately, allowing the Guaranteed Minimum Pension and the Widow’s Guaranteed Minimum Pension to increase annually according to the plan, and that you;

e) Amend Section 6 and Section 7 to allow a reasonable time after payment to select options, unless expedited as per (e)(i)

i) (c) can be considered as undertaken and (e) can be considered as expedited if:

1) Legislation permits a tax free lump sum to be taken as a Relevant Benefit, and

2) The balance after applying (a) and (b) is between xxxxx.xx and 25% of the value of the fund at the Benefit Date and before the application of the Capital Sum, and

3) The balance is made as a tax free lump sum benefit according to and compliant with the appropriate legislation

.

Note, in the above,(e) Compensates for the loss of time due to the delay introduced as a result of the option to enact the plan being omitted, this compounded by the clear need to undertake the consequential work involved in establishing my position, but without selection of the option(s) delaying payment of the immediate pension.

It is suggested that no less than 10 weeks after payment, as per the usage and meaning of payment in Section 6 of the plan, is a reasonable period of time.

I believe that should the matter have been taken to the Pensions Ombudsman that an award would have been made for distress and inconvenience. I suggest that you should offer compensation in line with what the Ombudsman would award.

Note the parts in b) and c) are underlined as they are alternatives, I'm not sure which is better, the underlined part in c) would also appear in a) if d) is not used.

Yep long winded but I've cut it down quite considerably. Again constructive comments are greatly appreciated.

Oh and a question re the GMP, as the GMP is increased annually compounded. Should the pension use the GMP as at age 60, then 61 and so on, as opposed to using the the final GMP, I've assumed that it should.

DMcC94

I will be in your shoes mjt, early next year. This latest tactic by Aviva is a concern, and you have, if nothing else, my full support. I agree with those earnest souls who have gone before me that Aviva need to be challenged and not allowed to weasel out of their contractual and moral obligations.
I see your wish to cover all the bases and try to spike Aviva guns as regards potential openings they can exploit, but would tend to agree with WBCPB to keep it fairly simple and refer to the Tony Harris decision and demand Aviva honour this ruling (which is what your second draft very effectively does).
My only other thought now is that, if this signals a new tactic by Aviva, that (apart from it being hugely disappointing) perhaps it might be useful to publicise their tactics more widely. Perhaps it's worth some of us writing to a range of the financial press with a view to their penning a few column inches on this. The more letters the better. A little bit of adverse press might make the marketing boys twitchy and apply some "loss of reputation pressure" on the Underwriting boys to do the right thing. Perhaps a bit nieve to think this might work.....but might not do any harm either.
Anyway I wish you luck and good fortune and I will be watching carefully at MSE for developments.

waterstar

I have also been through the Aviva s32/GMP process. On receiving the "10 week letter" I reviewed the various letters I had received, selected who i believed was the most senior person in Aviva that had signed any of those letters and addressed my letter personally to that person cross referencing the other letters I had received.

(note i did not have the issue of a separate "redress payment" re the policy)

I wrote in terms of the letters representing a unilateral variation of contract re the statements made re “you won't be able to take your pension benefits until the earlier of.........”. I stated I considered a benefit in line with the GMP to be payable at the benefit date of the policy, no matter what the level of the fund. I referred to the PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN in the case of Mr Anthony Harris and Aviva plc (PO-2269).

I also questioned whether continuing to present the "myth" of not adequate level in the fund being a reason for deferment was in line with the ethos of treating customers fairly?

The response was that Aviva were treating my letter as a formal complaint and the complaints department contacted me promptly and immediately acquiesced and stated that they were now treating s32 policies with GMP in line with the Harris Ombudsman case.

Hope this helps others.

M_j_t

waterstar wrote: »

I also questioned whether continuing to present the "myth" of not adequate level in the fund being a reason for deferment was in line with the ethos of treating customers fairly?

The response was that Aviva were treating my letter as a formal complaint and the complaints department contacted me promptly and immediately acquiesced and stated that they were now treating s32 policies with GMP in line with the Harris Ombudsman case.

Hope this helps others.

That's both encouraging and not. Good that it looks like they will likely do that. However, not as obviously they are not doing so as a matter of course; at least in my situation (and I'd suspect as the norm). I guess, in the hope that one of the given options would be elected thus dissolving them of paying out the extra.

I'd greatly appreciate you letting us know the date when they made the statement.

waterstar

M_j_t wrote: »

That's both encouraging and not. Good that it looks like they will likely do that. However, not as obviously they are not doing so as a matter of course; at least in my situation (and I'd suspect as the norm). I guess, in the hope that one of the given options would be elected thus dissolving them of paying out the extra.

I'd greatly appreciate you letting us know the date when they made the statement.

My correspondence and conversations with Aviva were in August 2016. There is not a published "statement" as such, rather this was the statement made to me in a telephone conversation by the individual from the Aviva complaints department who handled my case. Yes i agree that it is unsatisfactory that Aviva continue to put out generic letters which my be misleading to policy holders.

M_j_t

On 15th February (14th in the UK), I submitted my complaint via the Online Complaint System (snail mail is very much that around 2 weeks). Which promises to get it to the right person, keep me updated regularly etc as per

Making a complaint
Our promise to you
We want to give you great customer service but sometimes things do go wrong. We can usually resolve most issues straightaway, so please get in touch with your usual contact such as your broker or the Aviva team dealing with your claim or the sale or servicing of your policy.
You can also complain online using our complaint form where you can send us photos and files to help us understand your issues.
What you'll need to tell us so that we can help you
• Your personal details
• Your policy/claim details
• What's gone wrong
• What you want us to do to put things right
What we'll do to resolve your complaint
• We'll get it to the right person
• We'll be in touch with you as soon as we can and let you know what will happen next
• We'll treat your complaint fairly
• We'll resolve your complaint as soon as possible and we will try to do this within 10 working days
• For more complex issues it's likely that we will need longer to look into what's happened and we may ask you for further information to help us reach a decision
• We'll give you regular updates
And once we've dealt with your complaint, we'll go back and see what we can learn from your experience.

Last night after hearing nothing other than getting a "Maturity Chaser Letter (If you don't contact us by age 75........)" I decided to phone and try to ascertain the status.

First person was helpful in that I was passed to the "team". This second person wasn't even aware of the on-line complaints saying that the complaint wasn't on the system or hadn't been scanned and then tried to contact the team but couldn't. So said they get them to call back within 48 hours.

Not at all convinced that this person had a clue or that a return call would eventuate or would be at a reasonable time. I looked through the paperwork, tried the 0800 number. That failed so I did a web search on the number and found a standard number and phoned this.

Turned out that this number was the same team as before. However, now I was at fault because I had not completed the forms (which I had attached to the complaint) and thus annuity quotations couldn't be provided (contradicting the assurance from letters that state " at about 10 weeks before your retirement we will send you annuity quotations based upon the the information you have given us"). When I questioned how I could, considering the 1 week to maturity deadline before Aviva were in breach of the contract/policy, proceed with the complaint, the real team did not have an external email address. Eventually I was passed to the "un-contactable " team and within a short space I was given the non-existant email address ahcomp@aviva.com and asked to include in the subject "Please send to ???? ??????".

Should I not be totally convinced that Aviva's tactic is now to just try brushing these S32's with an age 60 maturity/benefit date under the carpet?

towag

chrisuk1 wrote: »

My letter from Aviva states that my annual income of £8273 from State Pension Age will increase by 3% on £2205 and "none" on £6068. No explanation why!!

Because if you do not challenge them and demand why, which will be exactly the same scenario "insufficient funds" (condition 7 in my case and probably yours) they used for not paying you at 60, the same as all the others... :cool:
I cant say too much as my complaint via the Pension Ombudsman is now ongoing, but to say that they have recieved many more complaints regarding the non payment of EPR from either the State pension age, or had it came into force, at your selected retirement date given at onset of your contract with Norwich Union... I believe that most policyholders have missed this very important aspect of these pensions...When I recently met up with and spoke to Anthony Harris on this point, he thought it was automatic and would be paid at onset of his SPA... When it was discovered that they will not, after I asked the dedicated handler on my policy, it was an absolute clear NO it would not be paid, so I made another formal complaint in writing to Aviva pointing out WHY it was wrong for them to do this... Their answer was exactly the same "insufficient funds" again stating "condition 7" It is now with the PO... If you feel strongly about this I suggest you get your complaint in pronto to add weight to all the others who are doing so!!...:cool:;)

M_j_t

towag, The problem I have is currently I have nothing to complain about (other than the atrocious complaint management(sic) process, even then I guess the PO would say contact them first) as there has been no response to the complaint I made.