DB pension transferred, now they want some money back

ukbpen1964

Hi Col349 
I am now in the same position as you and was forwarded your thread by another member - please keep me updated on your case and next steps as this is totally unacceptable.

I had taken early retirement - moved over to Northern Ireland and bought a large property with the 25% tax free sum and Im currently doing 2 days a week consultancy and got an email saying they had over calculated the CETV and want they over payment back.   Good luck with your decision  

Col349

ukbpen1964
Afraid I'm still waiting for a decision from the Ombudsman, hopefully get one soon.
If you haven't done so already it's worth a look at the Pension Ombudsman website as they have past cases on there with the rulings.  As far as I remember there is a defence about spending the money on something you wouldn't have bought if you hadn't received the overpayment, as I say worth a look through.
Always worth putting up a fight.

robatwork

Missed this thread at the time and as someone posted, quite refreshing to see something a bit different. My answer to them would have only been 2 words aka Arkell vs Pressdram. Let's hope the Pension's Ombudsman tells them to PO.

Col349

Asked for an update from the Ombudsman;

"The current timescale to complete the Standard Jurisdiction is 12 months. "

Could be shorter. Think it just shows how many people are getting done over regarding their pensions

Marcon

Col349 said:

Asked for an update from the Ombudsman;

"The current timescale to complete the Standard Jurisdiction is 12 months. "

Could be shorter. Think it just shows how many people are getting done over regarding their pensions

Think it shows the PO workload - if you look at the outcomes, they certainly aren't all found in favour of the member. 

pip895

If either of you is unfortunate enough to loose in the Ombudsmans decision, I would be looking to your advisor to take some or perhaps all the pain. 
The suggestion that they couldn't know that the CETV was wrong seems strange to me.  My advisors spotted a mistake in how the CETV was calculated and were able to get me a revised higher offer.  They also told me that they would have advised the company of the mistake, even had it not been in my favour i.e. if the value was too high.  On one hand this might suggest that a stated CETV value is not the final word, but on the other it would suggest that your advisors did a rather shoddy job.  Perhaps the much vaunted insurance that costs advisors so much, can step in and reimburse you. 

Tommyjw

pip895 said:

If either of you is unfortunate enough to loose in the Ombudsmans decision, I would be looking to your advisor to take some or perhaps all the pain. 
The suggestion that they couldn't know that the CETV was wrong seems strange to me.  My advisors spotted a mistake in how the CETV was calculated and were able to get me a revised higher offer.  They also told me that they would have advised the company of the mistake, even had it not been in my favour i.e. if the value was too high.  On one hand this might suggest that a stated CETV value is not the final word, but on the other it would suggest that your advisors did a rather shoddy job.  Perhaps the much vaunted insurance that costs advisors so much, can step in and reimburse you. 

Wouldnt see how an IFA would know in these circumstances.

Unless the statement that comes with it shows something wrong, which an adviser should spot,  such as wrong leave date, wrong join date, wrong deferred pension amount/splits. Even then, it will be reliant on the information/past documents the member can provide to substantiate anything. 

robatwork said:

Missed this thread at the time and as someone posted, quite refreshing to see something a bit different. My answer to them would have only been 2 words aka Arkell vs Pressdram. Let's hope the Pension's Ombudsman tells them to PO.

So under, for example.  GMP equalisation which has seen a very large number of transfers being/going to be revisitted . If your transfer had been incorrectly calculated against you due to your GMP record being incorrect, would you expect that to be paid to you or would you still attempt a vague case law approach at telling them to "PO?"

It's well established, mentioning GMP, that requesting monies back is most definitely allowed. See: https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2018/07/13/clawback-requests-hit-pension-transfers/?page=1  . Thats the Ombudsman, TPAS, and a partner at a law firm saying the same thing.

The main point against simply being, it is very costly for them to do so if the person doesnt willingly give it back. Lawyers are expensive, and every pension schemes rules will have something that lets it slide if they wanted to. E.g. "Benefits can be increase at the Trustee discretion" the Trustee could simply say screw it give this one case the discretion of being a higher transfer calculation. It is ultimately no different than, for example, chasing an estate for an overpayment paid after a memebr died. If nobody ever responds, the Trustee will have to find a time when it is financially not worth the effort to keep chasing, tracing next of kin, sending out letters, etc. Because ultiately their goal is financial stability for all memebrs so spending £5,000 of peopels time on a £100 death overpayment isnt worth it. 

If i was OP i would to put it in simple terms, be annoying as hell, and exhaust every timeframe i can in doing so. Take weeks to reply, ask for in-depth information onto the overpayment, ask for timelines, SAR to get full data, full IDRP & Ombudsman complaint etc. I'd take as long as i want to reply in every case. 

Parking_Trouble

Might have missed this skimming through the thread but are they going to reimburse the cost of the IFA who handled the transfer? IFA made their recommendation based on the figures supplied.

Looking at the CETV documents I have had in the past, it looks like a pretty simple contract.
The word 'Guaranteed' is used a lot.
No mention of future clawback.

Col349

Not getting email notifications anymore so have missed replies

Reply from TPO and the case has been referred to a Case Assessor , they now write to the company asking for their comments etc

The Guarantee in the CETV documents is meaningless as there are clauses all over it saying they can be wrong and it's not their fault, at least in mine.

retroman62

Any update on this case? I've read all the comments with interest from afar as someone who hasn't got the knowledge of pension law that many of the contributors here clearly have, but I would agree that your best approach, even now you've reached the Ombudsman level is, under How can this be put right section, to ask to be reinstated on the DB scheme on the basis of different choices potentially being made had the correct information been available at the time, if you are forced to repay the amount. 

I have to say irrespective of any wording in the CETV documents at the time, and irrespective of the obligations of Trustees not to overpay on a scheme, this seems to me to be an outrageous state of affairs. Good luck with the process - have to say having read some the Ombudsman's determinations, it doesn't exactly fill one with confidence .