Pension Trustees being very very unhelpful

Marcon

MarkCarnage said:

As already mentioned, the Trustees have discretion to act provided it is within the Scheme Rules, or to make an interpretation of these if it isn't wholly clear. They will usually take professional advice if there is ambiguity. 

There is a process for appealing against decisions made either by the Administrator or the Trustees (IDRP) which has two stages. Many are resolved at stage 1, but if the complainant isn't satisfied it would go to Stage 2. In most cases, there is scope to take it to the Pensions Ombudsman if still not satisfied...however in all stages it will focus on whether the Trustees correctly applied the rules, or a reasonable interpretation of them based on the facts, including any expression of wish which is held. 

The IDRP can be one or two stages, depending on what the trustees of a particular occupational pension scheme agree.

It's not clear to me that this is an occupational scheme. The references to 'policy' and 'pension firm' suggest it might be a lump sum payment representing the value of the individual's savings in what could be a personal pension, albeit part of a group personal pension arrangement. If that's the case, there won't be an IDRP.

Even if the scheme does have an IDRP because it is an occupational scheme, there is then a question as to whether someone can claim to fall into the category of 'person with an interest in the scheme' without any sort of evidence that's the case, which could be why there are so few IDRPs in this area.

'Applying the rules' is likely to apply only insofar as looking at the categories of eligible beneficiary - for example, not all schemes would allow payment to a charity. Of greater importance is ensuring that proper procedures have been followed, such as carrying out an appropriate level of due diligence; and that general principles have been adhered to (eg taking into account all relevant factors, not taking into account factors which are not relevant, not taking a decision which no reasonable person would have taken).

foxy_squirrel

Morning. Time for an update. After several more calls to said Insurance company, who will remain nameless, but I will never touch with a barge pole, we have an answer. My late siblings partner was the beneficiary. It did take them an absolute age to receive the answer and they have now had to supply reams of evidence to prove that they have in fact lived with my sibling for the past 10 years.  They are still to receive their monies. Avivia on the other hand, cannot fault them, kind, considerate and efficent, a well organised company, for whom nothing was too much trouble.
The moral of this story is this, if you wish your nearest and dearest, who ever they may be, to receive what you wish them to, then for goodness sake leave a valid will. Doesnt matter if its the cats home, the donkey sanctuary, your best mate from school, your work mates, or your partner or family. Yes I am well aware some people dont want to, IMO thats just selfish and unless you want your money dished out according to intestate rules write one. 
Thank you so much for all your comments, suggestions and kind words they are much appreciated. 

dunstonh

The moral of this story is this, if you wish your nearest and dearest, who ever they may be, to receive what you wish them to, then for goodness sake leave a valid will.

Pensions are not subject to a Will.      The pension trustees decide the destination and use the expression of wish/nomination of beneficiaries of the pension holder as an indication and 99% of these are followed.

 Doesnt matter if its the cats home, the donkey sanctuary,

Actually it does.   That is the type of nomination that can be overruled.  i.e. where there are financial dependents but the nomination is to go to a third party.

A Will can still help in scenarios where there is no nomination of beneficiaries but it is not binding on the pension.   An out of date Will can also be a problem.

My late siblings partner was the beneficiary. It did take them an absolute age to receive the answer and they have now had to supply reams of evidence to prove that they have in fact lived with my sibling for the past 10 years.  They are still to receive their monies. Avivia on the other hand, cannot fault them, kind, considerate and efficent, a well organised company, for whom nothing was too much trouble.

My gut feeling is that Aviva had an expression of wish completed, which is why it was quick and easy and the other pension did not as the process you describe matches what is needed for those without an EOW.   It would need a lot of information about family members and financial dependents and proof of interdependency and it may need to be referred to the trustees.    Trustees may only meet up once a month or less.   The trustees may ask questions that require the administrator to get more information for the next meeting.      

During that period, the pension provider would be tip-toeing around data protection to ensure that no-one is getting information they are not entitled to.    Especially if intestate and letters of administration have yet to be completed.  That can appear to be unhelpful but it isn't the intention.

I know what Aviva require on cases where there is no expression of wish and it would be similar to the process with the other pension in terms of information gathering (its pretty standard across the board).

Albermarle

The moral of this story is this, if you wish your nearest and dearest, who ever they may be, to receive what you wish them to, then for goodness sake leave a valid will

Good advice generally, but pensions should not be included in wills. If they are it will be ignored.

Marcon

foxy_squirrel said:

Morning. Time for an update. After several more calls to said Insurance company, who will remain nameless, but I will never touch with a barge pole, we have an answer. My late siblings partner was the beneficiary. It did take them an absolute age to receive the answer and they have now had to supply reams of evidence to prove that they have in fact lived with my sibling for the past 10 years.  They are still to receive their monies. 

So due diligence has been correctly carried out and the 'right' person is confirmed as the beneficiary.

foxy_squirrel said:

The moral of this story is this, if you wish your nearest and dearest, who ever they may be, to receive what you wish them to, then for goodness sake leave a valid will. Doesnt matter if its the cats home, the donkey sanctuary, your best mate from school, your work mates, or your partner or family. Yes I am well aware some people dont want to, IMO thats just selfish and unless you want your money dished out according to intestate rules write one. 

It could matter quite a lot, especially if the rules of a particular scheme restrict potential recipients to family members.

I'm very pleased this has come to a satisfactory conclusion for you all.

Pat38493

dunstonh said:

My gut feeling is that Aviva had an expression of wish completed, which is why it was quick and easy and the other pension did not....

This is an important point where we should make sure that we have nomination forms in place for any and all pension providers.  In particular, if like me you have a company who has changed the employer pension provider several times, but left your funds in the old schemes, you should not assume that updating your nominations through your employer HR department will apply to all your pensions (even if they were originally set up by the same employer).

I only realised this a couple of years ago and had to update all the nominations for the other pensions as well.

Lorian

My employer has separate nomination/expression of wish forms for pension and life insurance so make sure there aren't two to fill in.