DB pension transferred, now they want some money back

soulsaver

Ganga said:

megacatt said:

As a long time lurker this has annoyed me so much that I'm actually posting.  
Are the discussions about possible mistakes a red herring?
I suggest that it's a simple contract (as was said above but I think that it needs reiterating).  They made an offer.  You accepted.  Contract made and end of matter.
Unless there's a relevant clause in the contract allowing clawback then it doesn't matter how they arrived at their offer.
If it was me I'd just say this (after checking the contract terms) and stick to that line.  I'd also mention compensation for distress and start notifying them of the time spent on this and your assumed hourly rate.

Even if they demonstrate to you that they made some error in the calcs that's irrelevant.  They could have arrived at the number by casting runes and multiplying that by their star sign.  It doesn't matter to you how they arrived at the number, they made an offer and you accepted.  Contract made, end of story (barring explicit terms allowing claw back).  

I'm no expert but there are other potential factors in arriving at a transfer value in any case, it is not always just an actuarial calculation.  The company may wish to change its risk profile or exposure and add to any calculated value to encourage people to leave for example.

Using your theory ,what would happen if the poster found out later that the calculations were wrong and he /she had been short changed by say £250k ? whats the answer ,contract made and accepted and end of matter ? 

There is no 'calculations' available to you, it's done by actuaries.
If it was £250k light you'd reject as it's unlikely to be credible in terms of the multiples, and your IFA would be advising you it's a poor offer. 

RetSol

The more I think about the OP's problem, the more wrong it feels for the trustees to be backtracking.
This is a spin on previous posts but think about this.  The OP has accepted the buy out offer on the basis of advice which he had to obtain under the statutory/regulatory requirements at the time.  That advice and those requirements must form part of the contractual matrix between the OP and the pension provider.  If the pension trustees now change their minds, that utterly undermines the whole statutory/regulatory basis of the transaction which the OP has entered into.  That can't happen - the statute/regulation trumps the contract.  There is no way of knowing whether he would have accepted the buy-out on the terms now "offered".  It seems unlikely given the calcs offered above.  Or, as we lawyers like to say, F-off.

mark55man

Aha - the old Pressdram vs Arkell gambit - always entertaining, and full of the richness of lawyerly language 

jamesd

Col349, just remember that the best outcome for you probably starts with asking them to reinstate the DB pension.

The current transfer value is likely to be substantially higher and the only way I see them able to dodge is if you're within a year of taking the pension.

Your original adjusted transfer value looks to be poor for current private sector transfer values and I'm not sure that I would recommend transferring out. Would want to know more about your situation.

Also remember that there's no rule blocking a market crash while discussing this. It'd be prudent to put the transfer value plus inflation increases into cash or money market funds.

cfw1994

megacatt said:

As a long time lurker this has annoyed me so much that I'm actually posting.  
Are the discussions about possible mistakes a red herring?
I suggest that it's a simple contract (as was said above but I think that it needs reiterating).  They made an offer.  You accepted.  Contract made and end of matter.
Unless there's a relevant clause in the contract allowing clawback then it doesn't matter how they arrived at their offer.
If it was me I'd just say this (after checking the contract terms) and stick to that line.  I'd also mention compensation for distress and start notifying them of the time spent on this and your assumed hourly rate.

Even if they demonstrate to you that they made some error in the calcs that's irrelevant.  They could have arrived at the number by casting runes and multiplying that by their star sign.  It doesn't matter to you how they arrived at the number, they made an offer and you accepted.  Contract made, end of story (barring explicit terms allowing claw back).  

I'm no expert but there are other potential factors in arriving at a transfer value in any case, it is not always just an actuarial calculation.  The company may wish to change its risk profile or exposure and add to any calculated value to encourage people to leave for example.

Nowt to add to OP that hasn’t already it been said.....
....but that is top lurking, @megacatt!  You should post more often  👍

Dead_keen

I don't want to repeat what others have said so here are some other thoughts that might allow you to google more:

1. Most of the cases on recovering pension overpayments that I am aware of are to do with cash payments that have been made to the individual rather than a transfer to another pension scheme.  I think it would be fair to say that these cases favour people who have used or spent the over payment in some way compared to those that have saved the over-payment.  Here is a situation where part of a pension was transferred and it was claimed that it was excessive and so part should be repaid: https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/2013/po-408/mcnicolas-construction-holdings-pension-scheme-po-408  and the ombudsman said no.  This was a situation involving divorce where the individual would have done something different if she had known the numbers were lower.

2. Most occupational pensions schemes have an internal dispute resolution procedure (which I don't think is not legally binding).

3. I'd expect your strongest arguments would be based on contractual grounds.  So the key here is to get together any documents that you have relating to the transfer and what you agreed and talk to a lawyer about what they mean.  

4. It is helpful / important to show that something has changed for you because of this.  Have you spent more and saved less than you would have done if the amount you'd received was less? Have you moved to part time, taken steps towards an early retirement, etc. The important one here is obviously leaving the DB scheme but was else?

5. Restitution is a key word in this.  I struggle to see how being put back in the original pension scheme and keeping any profit that you've made since the money has moved is restitution.  But being put back in the DB scheme may well be the best answer.

6. Some defences on having to repay money that has been overpaid that can be googled include "change of position", "estoppel by convention", "estoppel by representation", "estoppel compared to change of position" as well as the arguments under on contract law ground and tort.  With a lot of googling you will find narratives around these that might help your or not.  Most (but not the contract one) require you have to taken some kind of action or spent some kind of money that you wouldn't have done if the amount had been correct.  

7. Skimming some of the ombudsman's decisions can also help you get a flavour of things and make sure you use helpful phrases when writing to the trustee.  I'd suggest doing things by letter rather than by email and definitely not by phone (and meeting should be about asking and listening, not negotiating).  

8. I'd also suggest not agreeing to anything too quickly, you taking proper legal advice and asking that the trustees pay for your legal advice as that "is only fair as" it was their apparent mistake.  In "the interests of fairness", if it was me I would be asking for the trustee to share its legal advice with me (they won't but then you can ask about "how is that fair" and what have they got to hide?). All this talk of "fair" and "fairness" might also help the trustee exercise any discretion it has in the right way.

9. Lawyers charge a lot of money, especially where the position is uncertain or unusual.  The more uncertainty you can throw at this and the more unfairness that you can demonstrate, the more the trustee might decide it's not worth taking forward.

10. Don't let this consume your life.

Triumph13

One point on the multipliers and the idea of being restored to the DB scheme and then transferring out again.  Given that this all hinges on them messing up the treatment of transferred in benefits, I strongly suspect that their error was in calculating the amount of the annual pension foregone rather than the size of the multiplier to use.  In that case the 20% 'reduction' would still stand in any future transfer out.  You could still benefit if the CETV now is greater than 29x the annual pension of course, but you will be comparing current CETV with 29x rather than with 23x.

TVAS

You are engaging in this process when you do not need to. All this rubbish about getting calculations blah blah blah.
I bet you didn't ask who signed off the transfer value.
We still do not know the transfer value amount this will indicate the level of the person who signed it off. 
Complain to the scheme in writing. Get their final decision then complain to POS.
Explain that the transfer is not viable for a lower amount so the options are reinstatement of our pension benefits IN FULL or no return of overpaid sum.
You should be contacting the Pension Ombudsman Service not the Pension Advisory Service.

jamesd

It's well worth seeing what they offer before going to the FOS.

They just might realise that their mistake is a nightmare for them because of the return to original position as a DB member approach.

Col349

Been a while so I thought I'd do a quick christmas update
Went back and forward with letters to company since May
Set out my complaint to them for the IDRP and they came back with, TPO is next step
Have filled in form on web and now just waiting
Will post again when final decision is made