A pension problem - this can't be right... can it?

saver861

@PensionTech - you have made a post which seems now to be deleted!

In that post it would seem you suggest that my comments should be 'taken with a pinch of salt' and that I derail threads to be contrary.

I might point out I am contributing my opinions. The 'double mistake' scenario is not clarified as above. The OP has not stated the reason for the error other than getting a demand for a cheque for over £15,000.

Post 9 above suggested that the OP's mum should have been aware on an non entitlement to the money after death. My response was to state that it is still possible the OP's mum might have been entitled to a smaller percentage of the original pension. If that were the case it might have been down to a mis-calculation.

Where in either of my two posts above is there anything unreasonable? I suggest that the company should not have the right to demand the money back in one go. In addition, depending on the particular reason for the overpayment, there might be some justification in the OP challenging the total refund.

As a professional working in pensions, then you would know more about pensions than I. If you don't, then you should not be working in the industry!! I, on the other hand, am a layman expressing an individual opinion. Exactly that, an opinion, such that there is no 'advice' on these boards.

Do me a favour, do read my posts and comment appropriately!

Trying to put me down on a public forum won't work .... refrain!

PensionTech

*sigh*

Yes, I did write something in response to your post. I then deleted it because on reflection I thought it might have been written in frustration and would really only be necessary if the OP came back on and started showing signs of being confused by your post (as a different OP did in the other thread that I linked to, where you were inventing details of her story).

I think it unhelpful to start introducing the idea that the overpayment itself is miscalculated and has been overstated. What evidence is there for this? Might not it be equally possible (that is to say, equally unlikely) that the overpayment has been understated, i.e. the OP's mum owes more than is being alleged?

The administrators might also have made a mistake in paying the original member's pension - the OP's father might have been due more, or less, than they were paying him while he was alive. There might be all kinds of mistakes. But there is no point in speculating about them and suggesting that the OP should be worried about them when there is in fact no evidence that anything like that has happened. An "opinion" on this is not exactly helpful. You may delight in being uninformed, but this forum is a place where people go for help, and they may not be able to tell the difference between someone who is giving them solid information and someone who is pointlessly speculating with no particular knowledge.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you think that the provider has failed to identify that the spouse might be due a spouse's pension. Note from the original post that there is no mention of whether a pension will continue to be payable to the OP's mother. It might, and it might not. But it would be pretty much unfathomable that an administrator - who, remember, works with these cases every day - would, on looking into an overpayment case (which are paid a lot more attention than standard day-to-day work) forget whether or not a spouse's pension is payable when trying to reclaim an overpayment from the spouse of a deceased member. It just isn't realistic. I'm not saying pension administrators are infallible - they clearly aren't. Mistakes do happen, but this one is so incredibly unlikely that I don't see the use in trying to introduce it and make the situation more complicated.

Now, you may reply to this, or you may not. I won't read it - reading your first post out of curiosity is what irritated me and got me into this mess! But next time, before you try to answer someone's question, please think: "Do I have any useful insight into this? Is this likely to help? Am I actually answering the OP's question or am I just stirring things up?" These are, by the way, the questions that I asked myself and which led me to retract my prior response to you - although you still felt the need to respond to it.

You might also want to wonder why so many people on this thread have you on their block lists.

Fabuleuse

Oh crikey, so much more info to digest - thank you all.

I won't attempt to answer all of the points raised til I've digested it all and can come back with something half-way intelligent, but I can quickly confirm that Mum IS definitely entitled to Dad's pension, paid monthly, there's no question of that. In fact the pension company have said that she will continue to be paid a lower recalculated / corrected amount. I'm not sure how she could have been expected to know whether what she's been paid previously was correct or not - I think, like most people probably would have done she just accepted it as correct as, presumably, she trusted the pension company to know what they were doing.

Again, thanks for your replies. I really didn't know where to start with this but you've helped, massively, already

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

I think it unhelpful to start introducing the idea that the overpayment itself is miscalculated and has been overstated. What evidence is there for this?

The OP does not indicate either way why there has been an overpayment. Indeed the OP states *If there has been an overpayment...* , from that I would deduce the OP is not necessarily accepting there has been an overpayment!!

Its simple:

Either the pension should have ceased at the time of death or there should have been a widows pension paid, which may have been less than the original pension. Thus that would have to be calculated.

If the pension should have ceased at the death of the holder then the OP's mum will have to pay the money back. It would seem in that case the OP's mum should have alerted the pension company.

Post 9 assumed that to be the case and I'm simply stating that it might not be. If there was no pension due it would be difficult for the OP's mum to justify not alerting the pension company and continued to accept payment. If, on the other hand, there was a widows pension that was miscalculated then the OP's mum would have a stronger case to challenge refunding the full amount.

In that case I would challenge the pension company to come to an agreement on how much should be repaid.

That's simple and straightforward on the basis of the information in the original post.

PensionTech wrote: »

An "opinion" on this is not exactly helpful.

You seem obsessed about 'my' opinions. Many others express opinions also.

PensionTech wrote: »

You may delight in being uninformed, but this forum is a place where people go for help, and they may not be able to tell the difference between someone who is giving them solid information and someone who is pointlessly speculating with no particular knowledge.

Firstly the written word is ambiguous - thus open to misinterpretation. People come on here for suggestions to a problem. Others respond on their understanding. It is not advice.

How much knowledge do you suggest should posters have on a topic before they can post on the forum? What level of specialism is required by posters?

Its not the nature of public forums. I thought you would have got that by now!

PensionTech wrote: »

I'm not saying pension administrators are infallible -

Good we agree on something .... other than you think I am infallible as soon as I post!!

PensionTech wrote: »

Now, you may reply to this, or you may not. I won't read it -

Your choice to read or not to read ..... others will no doubt!!

PensionTech wrote: »

Am I actually answering the OP's question or am I just stirring things up?" These are, by the way, the questions that I asked myself

So you admit to question yourself on whether you are stirring things up??? hmmm ......

PensionTech wrote: »

You might also want to wonder why so many people on this thread have you on their block lists.

I don't wonder in the least .... entirely their choice. It is a bit curious though how some who say I am on their block list respond to my posts ..... maybe the blocking system is not working correctly .... but that would be me speculating again ...... oh dear ....

saver861

Fabuleuse wrote: »

t I can quickly confirm that Mum IS definitely entitled to Dad's pension, paid monthly, there's no question of that.

That's cleared that up then .... it is just as I had thought might be the case.

Fabuleuse wrote: »

In fact the pension company have said that she will continue to be paid a lower recalculated / corrected amount.

Thus there has either been a mis calculation or no adjustment as they say they were unaware of the death.

Fabuleuse wrote: »

I'm not sure how she could have been expected to know whether what she's been paid previously was correct or not - I think, like most people probably would have done she just accepted it as correct as, presumably, she trusted the pension company to know what they were doing.

This is precisely as I was saying earlier - though PensionTech seemed hell bent on confusing my contribution.

Most would indeed depend on the pension company to do the correct calculations. However, if they have not, it does not mean your mum would be entitled to keep the money without any repayment. However, she would be in a much stronger position to challenge the company on a) a repayment amount and b) a repayment schedule.

If you have proof that you sent the death certificate and the original company acknowledged receipt then your case would be even stronger. If not, it might be more difficult.

Either way, my 'opinion' would be that its likely your mum will have to pay some of the money back but should be able to negotiate an amount and a repayment duration.

EternallyGrateful

Some time ago I was in a very similar situation with my mother although for a much smaller amount - around £5,000. My father died in 1998 and my mother continued to receive a monthly pension, although less than when he was alive. Many years later the pension provider (as in your case not the original company) wrote asking for the repayment of an overpayment.
I replied on behalf of my mother saying that I needed to see proof of what they were saying. That proof would have to be in the form of original documentation such that my financial adviser could go through them and confirm what they were suggesting.
I also said that of course this process would incur costs and that I would expect them to make some contribution. This was on the basis that they were already admitting to having made a 'possible' error so how was I to know that this error wasn't being compounded by a further error on their part.
There was a further exchange of 3/4 letters each way without them actually complying with my request. I eventually wrote and said that what I was asking wasn't unreasonable and that I had nothing further to say on the matter. Also, if they continued to write to me without providing the information I was seeking, I would have to start invoicing them for the time I was spending. Eventually I received a letter advising me that they had reviewed the case and decided to take no further action. This, of course, included a disclaimer.

saver861

EternallyGrateful wrote: »

Also, if they continued to write to me without providing the information I was seeking, I would have to start invoicing them for the time I was spending. Eventually I received a letter advising me that they had reviewed the case and decided to take no further action. This, of course, included a disclaimer.

Absolutely correct!!! Good on ya.

It is right to challenge these companies. They make the mistake then they are at least liable for a reduction in amounts owing due to their mistake.

I think it is important to conduct these correspondences in a correct and conciliatory manner. However, in many cases, these companies are more likely to give in and send the 'reviewed the case and no further action' letter gets sent out. They don't want either the hassle or the potential bad publicity.

That is not to say of course, that all monies due will be written off, but where mistakes have been made wholly or largely on the part of the company, personally I would get my teeth well into them. No mercy .... their quality management procedures are ineffective .... they have senior management getting paid serious money to get their procedures and processes correct. When they don't, they will try to claw the money back in the hope that the gullible Joe Soap will just stump up.

Welll ... not the case for this particular Joe Soap ....

EternallyGrateful

saver861 wrote: »

Absolutely correct!!! Good on ya.

I think it is important to conduct these correspondences in a correct and conciliatory manner. However, in many cases, these companies are more likely to give in and send the 'reviewed the case and no further action' letter gets sent out. They don't want either the hassle or the potential bad publicity.

The important word there is "conciliatory". Don't go confrontational with the first approach or maybe even the second. On other occasions (usually verbal exchanges) I have presented myself as being naive in the form of asking advice of the company I am engaged with. This can cause people to drop their guard and tell you stuff that they shouldn't! I would also suggest attaching target dates to things. For example: if asking for information suggest a target date and further ask that they let you know (in writing) if this isn't going to be achievable. My approach is put things in writing, be nice and take control if you can.

saver861

EternallyGrateful wrote: »

The important word there is "conciliatory". Don't go confrontational with the first approach or maybe even the second. On other occasions (usually verbal exchanges) I have presented myself as being naive in the form of asking advice of the company I am engaged with. This can cause people to drop their guard and tell you stuff that they shouldn't! I would also suggest attaching target dates to things. For example: if asking for information suggest a target date and further ask that they let you know (in writing) if this isn't going to be achievable. My approach is put things in writing, be nice and take control if you can.

Absolutely spot on. Very sound advice there that many on here would do well to take note.

I have had many many 'debates' with companies and have held them to check many times. Always though, the exchange is appropriate and professional and, to use the word again, conciliatory.

If I then exhaust the magnitude of someones responsibility I will thank them for their time and inform them I will be raising the matter at the next level.

Equally, it is indeed a very good strategy to 'play dumb'. In these circumstances, its much more important to ask and listen than trying to dictate.

One time US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher once said, "A long time ago I found out I was better at listening than talking". That realisation made him a much better negotiator.

nearlyrich

Slightly different circumstances but I stood up to the big P over a joint life insurance policy miss-sold to my parents in the 70's. My dad died in his 50's and the policy paid out on his death. When my mum was 65 she got a letter and a cheque from them saying here are the proceeds of your endowment policy. As far as my parents knew they had a whole of life policy not an endowment and at 65 to get the cover she had at 50 would have been very expensive. Eventually we got a settlement which allowed her to buy a pre paid funeral plan she just wanted to know we wouldn't have to stump up for a funeral bless her. So different issue but just wanted to say it's worth fighting a big company because each case is small fry to them but to a widow on a limited income a few quid means a lot. I hope you get it sorted without too much distress to your mum.