Pension overpayment - provider wants to take back £20k

Cbu0210

MarkCarnage said:

I think it's around 12-13% of the original amount, so I guess it's not a significant amount overall, and I don't think they could state it was obvious 

So the original quote was about £160k and they now say it should have been about £140k? I would agree that this is not at all obvious - discount rate movements alone can move the dial by a lot more than that as we've seen in last couple of years. Also, the scheme rules around inflation indexation, spouse benefits etc etc can all make a significant difference. Members receive these in an information vacuum effectively and have no way of ascertaining the accuracy to this level without very detailed knowledge of the assumptions and workings. 
It's a bit different for checking what your expected pension in payment should be in nearly all cases - you should be able to track a pretty accurate estimate of it as noted by others above. CETV is a different ball game altogether. 

Hi, yes, thank you - original was around £170k and the revised figure is around £150k. I've also taken on what you've said in your previous comments, too, about the trustees responsibilities etc, so thank you, I appreciate your advice. I've submitted my complaint and I'm hoping we can resolve it fairly, but I will update the post when I receive their response. 

Pat38493

Cbu0210 said:

Hello everyone.

Many thanks for your comments and advice on my question, I'm very grateful to you all for taking the time - it's really helpful and I've taken a lot on board. 

I understand the argument that I should only have received what I was entitled to and, had the error come to light much sooner, then I would have been in a much stronger position to be able to pay the amount back, perhaps even taken an option to return to the original scheme.

However, because it's well over five years later and I've withdrawn the full lump sum as well as taking a small pension to supplement my income and allow me to take on a mortgage, the original pot has decreased quite significantly, and so taking that amount back now, certainly as one lump sum, would have a much bigger impact.

As I mentioned in my original post, there will also be a tax implication because the lump sum I received is larger than that I would've received on the revised figure. That may well cause financial difficulties for me, depending on how much is owed, which could affect my ability to continue paying my mortgage, and that is quite frightening.

I think the moral argument goes both ways. This was not my error - I had no reason to doubt the offer value, neither did my FA. I was offered the transfer value in full and final settlement and took that in good faith. Nowhere in the paperwork does it say that there is an option to take money back if a mistake was found at a later date.

I understand that the trustees have an obligation to the Trust to attempt to retrieve the overpayment and why they are doing what they are doing, but I do think the liability lies with them, at least in part, in cases like this. 

I don't understand why they are not pursuing the actuaries for compensation - for this to have come to light after so long and to go after individuals who, as in my case, have made life-changing decisions based on that final settlement I do think is wrong. 

I can see both sides - it's just a horrible, very stressful situation to be in.

I've submitted a complaint and that has now been acknowledged, so I will await the outcome and I will update this thread for anyone who's interested. 

You are being quote pragmatic and understanding about it, but in my view you should use every trick in the book and every argument going against paying the money back - including potentially and eventually  the "I'll see you in court" approach.  On a previous thread about this one of the comments was that there is little to lose from stringing this out as long as possible, and for 20K, they might well give up and write it off before they decide to take you to court for money that you may not have anyway.

But before that I would guess there are a lot of ways you can stall the process for a long time - asking for all the details of the calculations, then following up with questions, challenges and so on.  I would have thought that your IFA should help with this as it was them that presumably recommended the transfer out (albeit possibly under incorrect figures).  

Furthermore, if paying the money back would put you in financial hardship, they would not be able to do that.   I think a case was mentioned on another thread where the court found against the member, but then said they only had to pay it back at some trivial amount per year over a very long time.

Cbu0210

Pat38493 said:

Cbu0210 said:

Hello everyone.

Many thanks for your comments and advice on my question, I'm very grateful to you all for taking the time - it's really helpful and I've taken a lot on board. 

I understand the argument that I should only have received what I was entitled to and, had the error come to light much sooner, then I would have been in a much stronger position to be able to pay the amount back, perhaps even taken an option to return to the original scheme.

However, because it's well over five years later and I've withdrawn the full lump sum as well as taking a small pension to supplement my income and allow me to take on a mortgage, the original pot has decreased quite significantly, and so taking that amount back now, certainly as one lump sum, would have a much bigger impact.

As I mentioned in my original post, there will also be a tax implication because the lump sum I received is larger than that I would've received on the revised figure. That may well cause financial difficulties for me, depending on how much is owed, which could affect my ability to continue paying my mortgage, and that is quite frightening.

I think the moral argument goes both ways. This was not my error - I had no reason to doubt the offer value, neither did my FA. I was offered the transfer value in full and final settlement and took that in good faith. Nowhere in the paperwork does it say that there is an option to take money back if a mistake was found at a later date.

I understand that the trustees have an obligation to the Trust to attempt to retrieve the overpayment and why they are doing what they are doing, but I do think the liability lies with them, at least in part, in cases like this. 

I don't understand why they are not pursuing the actuaries for compensation - for this to have come to light after so long and to go after individuals who, as in my case, have made life-changing decisions based on that final settlement I do think is wrong. 

I can see both sides - it's just a horrible, very stressful situation to be in.

I've submitted a complaint and that has now been acknowledged, so I will await the outcome and I will update this thread for anyone who's interested. 

You are being quote pragmatic and understanding about it, but in my view you should use every trick in the book and every argument going against paying the money back - including potentially and eventually  the "I'll see you in court" approach.  On a previous thread about this one of the comments was that there is little to lose from stringing this out as long as possible, and for 20K, they might well give up and write it off before they decide to take you to court for money that you may not have anyway.

But before that I would guess there are a lot of ways you can stall the process for a long time - asking for all the details of the calculations, then following up with questions, challenges and so on.  I would have thought that your IFA should help with this as it was them that presumably recommended the transfer out (albeit possibly under incorrect figures).  

Furthermore, if paying the money back would put you in financial hardship, they would not be able to do that.   I think a case was mentioned on another thread where the court found against the member, but then said they only had to pay it back at some trivial amount per year over a very long time.

Yes, I agree and I will do my best to fight it. I did also speak to Money Helper earlier and they were really good. They said that it may well not be in the trustees' interest to take me to court as the costs are likely to be higher than the amount they want to recoup. My only worry with that is, if it did actually go that far, I may then be liable for court costs, which I doubt I'd be able to pay.

My IFA has been very good and helped me draft the initial complaint, although the complaint does have to come from me, not them. They will help me with the rest of the process, too. I will ask for details of the calculations etc, too, as you suggest, thank you, and I'll definitely string it out. I think I was just in shock for a while so I'm only now starting to research it properly.

I will most definitely go to the Pensions Ombudsman if the administrators don't uphold my complaint - I think after that the only option would be the courts. 

Cbu0210

Just an update on the first response received from the administrator for those who may be interested. This is copied from their response, and appears to include the advice from their legal team:

"The recovery of overpaid pension benefits has been considered on many occasions by the courts and the Pensions Ombudsman, who has made it clear that trustees have a duty to attempt to recover such overpayments, even where a member is not at fault. The principles set out in those cases must guide the way that the Trustee proceeds in these circumstances.

The additional money that you received as part of your transfer value is money to which you were not entitled under the Scheme and is money that should not have been paid. The fact that this occurred due to an error on the part of (the administrator) ....... is broadly immaterial in the eyes of the Pensions Ombudsman in such cases. We have received advice that by failing to seek recovery of funds which have been paid in error, the Trustee could be criticised for providing you with more than your entitlement under the Scheme and for failing to meet its duties to other beneficiaries of the Scheme, for whose benefit the overpaid funds would otherwise have been available. (The administrator) is therefore obliged to ask you to repay these funds.

As regards the wording of “full and final settlement” that you have described, this would not curtail the Trustee’s ability to attempt to recover a payment to which you were never entitled, and which was paid to the SIPP by mistake, as in this case. The Trustee’s duty to attempt recover would override any such contractual considerations. It is also clear from the Pensions Ombudsman cases referred to above that the duty on trustees to recover overpaid benefits applies equally in cases where the recipient of an overpayment could not have been expected to have known that they had been overpaid. "

They go on that 'in the interests of transparency' I may have a possible 'change of position' defence. I have to respond to their Senior Legal Counsel with my decision and they have said I can contact that person to discuss my complaint before making a decision, if I so wish (which I don't).

At this point I am considering seeking independent legal advice rather than speak to their team, and I will request that the trustees pay for that advice as this has occurred because their mistake, not mine. I want to understand why the contract law doesn't apply in this case, and what other defence can be used. It has also been suggested above that I request a DSAR and for details of how the calculations have been made, so I will do that.

Whilst I understand I may well have to pay the sum back, or at least part of it, I am so very angry now that I have been put in this position and am determined to fight it regardless of the outcome. I am seeing my IFA on Thursday to plan the next stage.

Again, I'm grateful for all your contributions, thank you, and the links that have been posted here have been really useful. If anyone has any further advice/suggestions, please let me know

I will update again as and when .....

Marcon

Cbu0210 said:

Just an update on the first response received from the administrator for those who may be interested. This is copied from their response, and appears to include the advice from their legal team:

"The recovery of overpaid pension benefits has been considered on many occasions by the courts and the Pensions Ombudsman, who has made it clear that trustees have a duty to attempt to recover such overpayments, even where a member is not at fault. The principles set out in those cases must guide the way that the Trustee proceeds in these circumstances.

The additional money that you received as part of your transfer value is money to which you were not entitled under the Scheme and is money that should not have been paid. The fact that this occurred due to an error on the part of (the administrator) ....... is broadly immaterial in the eyes of the Pensions Ombudsman in such cases. We have received advice that by failing to seek recovery of funds which have been paid in error, the Trustee could be criticised for providing you with more than your entitlement under the Scheme and for failing to meet its duties to other beneficiaries of the Scheme, for whose benefit the overpaid funds would otherwise have been available. (The administrator) is therefore obliged to ask you to repay these funds.

As regards the wording of “full and final settlement” that you have described, this would not curtail the Trustee’s ability to attempt to recover a payment to which you were never entitled, and which was paid to the SIPP by mistake, as in this case. The Trustee’s duty to attempt recover would override any such contractual considerations. It is also clear from the Pensions Ombudsman cases referred to above that the duty on trustees to recover overpaid benefits applies equally in cases where the recipient of an overpayment could not have been expected to have known that they had been overpaid. "

They go on that 'in the interests of transparency' I may have a possible 'change of position' defence. I have to respond to their Senior Legal Counsel with my decision and they have said I can contact that person to discuss my complaint before making a decision, if I so wish (which I don't).

At this point I am considering seeking independent legal advice rather than speak to their team, and I will request that the trustees pay for that advice as this has occurred because their mistake, not mine. I want to understand why the contract law doesn't apply in this case, and what other defence can be used. It has also been suggested above that I request a DSAR and for details of how the calculations have been made, so I will do that.

Whilst I understand I may well have to pay the sum back, or at least part of it, I am so very angry now that I have been put in this position and am determined to fight it regardless of the outcome. I am seeing my IFA on Thursday to plan the next stage.

Again, I'm grateful for all your contributions, thank you, and the links that have been posted here have been really useful. If anyone has any further advice/suggestions, please let me know

I will update again as and when .....

In your first post you said you wouldn't have proceeded with the transfer had you known the correct amount. I've not ploughed through all the responses since then, so forgive me if this point has already been made - but given the trustees were at fault, have you actually raised with them the possibility of reinstatement in the DB scheme? A change of position defence would only succeed where you have irrevocably altered your position to your detriment - so you do at least need to ask.

Tommyjw

Cbu0210 said:

Just an update on the first response received from the administrator for those who may be interested. This is copied from their response, and appears to include the advice from their legal team:

"The recovery of overpaid pension benefits has been considered on many occasions by the courts and the Pensions Ombudsman, who has made it clear that trustees have a duty to attempt to recover such overpayments, even where a member is not at fault. The principles set out in those cases must guide the way that the Trustee proceeds in these circumstances.

The additional money that you received as part of your transfer value is money to which you were not entitled under the Scheme and is money that should not have been paid. The fact that this occurred due to an error on the part of (the administrator) ....... is broadly immaterial in the eyes of the Pensions Ombudsman in such cases. We have received advice that by failing to seek recovery of funds which have been paid in error, the Trustee could be criticised for providing you with more than your entitlement under the Scheme and for failing to meet its duties to other beneficiaries of the Scheme, for whose benefit the overpaid funds would otherwise have been available. (The administrator) is therefore obliged to ask you to repay these funds.

As regards the wording of “full and final settlement” that you have described, this would not curtail the Trustee’s ability to attempt to recover a payment to which you were never entitled, and which was paid to the SIPP by mistake, as in this case. The Trustee’s duty to attempt recover would override any such contractual considerations. It is also clear from the Pensions Ombudsman cases referred to above that the duty on trustees to recover overpaid benefits applies equally in cases where the recipient of an overpayment could not have been expected to have known that they had been overpaid. "

They go on that 'in the interests of transparency' I may have a possible 'change of position' defence. I have to respond to their Senior Legal Counsel with my decision and they have said I can contact that person to discuss my complaint before making a decision, if I so wish (which I don't).

At this point I am considering seeking independent legal advice rather than speak to their team, and I will request that the trustees pay for that advice as this has occurred because their mistake, not mine. I want to understand why the contract law doesn't apply in this case, and what other defence can be used. It has also been suggested above that I request a DSAR and for details of how the calculations have been made, so I will do that.

Whilst I understand I may well have to pay the sum back, or at least part of it, I am so very angry now that I have been put in this position and am determined to fight it regardless of the outcome. I am seeing my IFA on Thursday to plan the next stage.

Again, I'm grateful for all your contributions, thank you, and the links that have been posted here have been really useful. If anyone has any further advice/suggestions, please let me know

I will update again as and when .....

All of what they have said is correct and as said backed up by many prior cases, unfortunately, it is just a very odd part of the industry that for whatever reason hasnt sorted itself out yet (from e.g. the admin or Trustee having insurance to cover these scenarios).

Speaking as someone who has prepared a response to a DSAR many a time over the years, i feel i need to temper people's expectations with it. You absolutely will not see anything about the calculations themselves. Even if (and its not guaranteed) there is an excel version of a CETV calculation held on your file, you'd get a PDF of it, not see any formula, and even then they could redact background detail such as certain Scheme specific assumptions etc.

And i understand how crap the whole situation is, but you'll also get nowhere asking the Trustee to pay for legal advice from my experience but worth a try.

Also not sure why you wouldnt speak to their legal counsel, of course theres the ol don' take legal advice from the other side, but for the sake of a conversation which could lead to your change ofg position defense being successful, seems odd to refuse.

Pat38493

Tommyjw said:

Cbu0210 said:

Just an update on the first response received from the administrator for those who may be interested. This is copied from their response, and appears to include the advice from their legal team:

"The recovery of overpaid pension benefits has been considered on many occasions by the courts and the Pensions Ombudsman, who has made it clear that trustees have a duty to attempt to recover such overpayments, even where a member is not at fault. The principles set out in those cases must guide the way that the Trustee proceeds in these circumstances.

The additional money that you received as part of your transfer value is money to which you were not entitled under the Scheme and is money that should not have been paid. The fact that this occurred due to an error on the part of (the administrator) ....... is broadly immaterial in the eyes of the Pensions Ombudsman in such cases. We have received advice that by failing to seek recovery of funds which have been paid in error, the Trustee could be criticised for providing you with more than your entitlement under the Scheme and for failing to meet its duties to other beneficiaries of the Scheme, for whose benefit the overpaid funds would otherwise have been available. (The administrator) is therefore obliged to ask you to repay these funds.

As regards the wording of “full and final settlement” that you have described, this would not curtail the Trustee’s ability to attempt to recover a payment to which you were never entitled, and which was paid to the SIPP by mistake, as in this case. The Trustee’s duty to attempt recover would override any such contractual considerations. It is also clear from the Pensions Ombudsman cases referred to above that the duty on trustees to recover overpaid benefits applies equally in cases where the recipient of an overpayment could not have been expected to have known that they had been overpaid. "

They go on that 'in the interests of transparency' I may have a possible 'change of position' defence. I have to respond to their Senior Legal Counsel with my decision and they have said I can contact that person to discuss my complaint before making a decision, if I so wish (which I don't).

At this point I am considering seeking independent legal advice rather than speak to their team, and I will request that the trustees pay for that advice as this has occurred because their mistake, not mine. I want to understand why the contract law doesn't apply in this case, and what other defence can be used. It has also been suggested above that I request a DSAR and for details of how the calculations have been made, so I will do that.

Whilst I understand I may well have to pay the sum back, or at least part of it, I am so very angry now that I have been put in this position and am determined to fight it regardless of the outcome. I am seeing my IFA on Thursday to plan the next stage.

Again, I'm grateful for all your contributions, thank you, and the links that have been posted here have been really useful. If anyone has any further advice/suggestions, please let me know

I will update again as and when .....

All of what they have said is correct and as said backed up by many prior cases, unfortunately, it is just a very odd part of the industry that for whatever reason hasnt sorted itself out yet (from e.g. the admin or Trustee having insurance to cover these scenarios).

Speaking as someone who has prepared a response to a DSAR many a time over the years, i feel i need to temper people's expectations with it. You absolutely will not see anything about the calculations themselves. Even if (and its not guaranteed) there is an excel version of a CETV calculation held on your file, you'd get a PDF of it, not see any formula, and even then they could redact background detail such as certain Scheme specific assumptions etc.

And i understand how crap the whole situation is, but you'll also get nowhere asking the Trustee to pay for legal advice from my experience but worth a try.

Also not sure why you wouldnt speak to their legal counsel, of course theres the ol don' take legal advice from the other side, but for the sake of a conversation which could lead to your change ofg position defense being successful, seems odd to refuse.

I’m not really clear what the grounds would be under a DSAR response for redacting “scheme specific assumptions”.  Normally redactions on DSAR responses are on the grounds that they would interfere with commercial secrets and/or the legitimate privacy rights of another individual.  Assumptions about what interest rates might be in future or growth rates or whatever are neither.

Pat38493

Cbu0210 said:

Just an update on the first response received from the administrator for those who may be interested. This is copied from their response, and appears to include the advice from their legal team:

"The recovery of overpaid pension benefits has been considered on many occasions by the courts and the Pensions Ombudsman, who has made it clear that trustees have a duty to attempt to recover such overpayments, even where a member is not at fault. The principles set out in those cases must guide the way that the Trustee proceeds in these circumstances.

The additional money that you received as part of your transfer value is money to which you were not entitled under the Scheme and is money that should not have been paid. The fact that this occurred due to an error on the part of (the administrator) ....... is broadly immaterial in the eyes of the Pensions Ombudsman in such cases. We have received advice that by failing to seek recovery of funds which have been paid in error, the Trustee could be criticised for providing you with more than your entitlement under the Scheme and for failing to meet its duties to other beneficiaries of the Scheme, for whose benefit the overpaid funds would otherwise have been available. (The administrator) is therefore obliged to ask you to repay these funds.

As regards the wording of “full and final settlement” that you have described, this would not curtail the Trustee’s ability to attempt to recover a payment to which you were never entitled, and which was paid to the SIPP by mistake, as in this case. The Trustee’s duty to attempt recover would override any such contractual considerations. It is also clear from the Pensions Ombudsman cases referred to above that the duty on trustees to recover overpaid benefits applies equally in cases where the recipient of an overpayment could not have been expected to have known that they had been overpaid. "

They go on that 'in the interests of transparency' I may have a possible 'change of position' defence. I have to respond to their Senior Legal Counsel with my decision and they have said I can contact that person to discuss my complaint before making a decision, if I so wish (which I don't).

At this point I am considering seeking independent legal advice rather than speak to their team, and I will request that the trustees pay for that advice as this has occurred because their mistake, not mine. I want to understand why the contract law doesn't apply in this case, and what other defence can be used. It has also been suggested above that I request a DSAR and for details of how the calculations have been made, so I will do that.

Whilst I understand I may well have to pay the sum back, or at least part of it, I am so very angry now that I have been put in this position and am determined to fight it regardless of the outcome. I am seeing my IFA on Thursday to plan the next stage.

Again, I'm grateful for all your contributions, thank you, and the links that have been posted here have been really useful. If anyone has any further advice/suggestions, please let me know

I will update again as and when .....

Regardless of the final outcome, there was a post on here a couple of moths ago where someone linked a video from some kind of regulator or politician who was talking about these issues with pension schemes clawing back money that was paid in error to members and the need to alter the regulations and responsibilities in this area.  I can’t quite remember the details but it might be worth trying to find that and give that organisation more ammunition.  

What the trustees are saying may well be legally correct (although a different lawyer may have a different opinion on the contract law vs pension law part), but I don’t think that pension trustees really want to be finding themselves in these situations either.

As has been discussed on this and several other threads, the most obvious solution to this is the same one as with IFAs - the administrators making these calculations should be forced to have insurance and made liable for these type of mistakes.  This will then incentivise them to get the calculations right first time.

Either that, or pension schemes should be obliged to have insurance as I suppose you could also argue that trustees are responsible for not appointing administrators who don’t get the calculations right.  I know that everyone makes mistakes, but when we are talking about 6 figure payouts, every private company I’ve ever worked for would have multiple layers of checks in place.

xylophone

https://prospect.org.uk/article/how-should-i-respond-to-a-request-for-repayment-of-overpaid-pension/

(4) Can you challenge a decision to pursue repayment?

In these situations it should be possible for you to argue that (a) the problem was the scheme’s fault and (b) there is no possible way you could have been aware of the issue.

If your financial position has changed in a way that you cannot undo, (for example by spending the money on a holiday or on a generally improved standard of living over a period of time), it might be possible to argue that the scheme should write off some or all of the overpayment.

https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/pensions-in-dispute/common-member-complaints/recovery-of-overpaid-pensions#:~:text=Change of position&text=In this case, a member,the money paid in error.

Change of position

The most common member defence, although they may not expressly use this phrase, is ‘change of position’. In this case, a member has a defence to repayment under common law if they have changed their position such that it would be inequitable (unfair) to require the member to repay the money paid in error.1  

To succeed, the member must show that they entered into an irreversible financial commitment in good faith based on the belief that their pension payment was accurate. The member must also show a causal link between the overpayment and the financial commitment, and the money must not have been spent on something that the member was already obliged to pay (such as a debt). If the member is only able to show that part of the overpayment was spent in an irreversible manner, then they will not be entitled to retain the rest. 

If the member suspected that they were receiving an overpayment, but chose not to look into it, the member cannot take advantage of the change of position defence.

Tommyjw

Pat38493 said:

Tommyjw said:

Cbu0210 said:

Just an update on the first response received from the administrator for those who may be interested. This is copied from their response, and appears to include the advice from their legal team:

"The recovery of overpaid pension benefits has been considered on many occasions by the courts and the Pensions Ombudsman, who has made it clear that trustees have a duty to attempt to recover such overpayments, even where a member is not at fault. The principles set out in those cases must guide the way that the Trustee proceeds in these circumstances.

The additional money that you received as part of your transfer value is money to which you were not entitled under the Scheme and is money that should not have been paid. The fact that this occurred due to an error on the part of (the administrator) ....... is broadly immaterial in the eyes of the Pensions Ombudsman in such cases. We have received advice that by failing to seek recovery of funds which have been paid in error, the Trustee could be criticised for providing you with more than your entitlement under the Scheme and for failing to meet its duties to other beneficiaries of the Scheme, for whose benefit the overpaid funds would otherwise have been available. (The administrator) is therefore obliged to ask you to repay these funds.

As regards the wording of “full and final settlement” that you have described, this would not curtail the Trustee’s ability to attempt to recover a payment to which you were never entitled, and which was paid to the SIPP by mistake, as in this case. The Trustee’s duty to attempt recover would override any such contractual considerations. It is also clear from the Pensions Ombudsman cases referred to above that the duty on trustees to recover overpaid benefits applies equally in cases where the recipient of an overpayment could not have been expected to have known that they had been overpaid. "

They go on that 'in the interests of transparency' I may have a possible 'change of position' defence. I have to respond to their Senior Legal Counsel with my decision and they have said I can contact that person to discuss my complaint before making a decision, if I so wish (which I don't).

At this point I am considering seeking independent legal advice rather than speak to their team, and I will request that the trustees pay for that advice as this has occurred because their mistake, not mine. I want to understand why the contract law doesn't apply in this case, and what other defence can be used. It has also been suggested above that I request a DSAR and for details of how the calculations have been made, so I will do that.

Whilst I understand I may well have to pay the sum back, or at least part of it, I am so very angry now that I have been put in this position and am determined to fight it regardless of the outcome. I am seeing my IFA on Thursday to plan the next stage.

Again, I'm grateful for all your contributions, thank you, and the links that have been posted here have been really useful. If anyone has any further advice/suggestions, please let me know

I will update again as and when .....

All of what they have said is correct and as said backed up by many prior cases, unfortunately, it is just a very odd part of the industry that for whatever reason hasnt sorted itself out yet (from e.g. the admin or Trustee having insurance to cover these scenarios).

Speaking as someone who has prepared a response to a DSAR many a time over the years, i feel i need to temper people's expectations with it. You absolutely will not see anything about the calculations themselves. Even if (and its not guaranteed) there is an excel version of a CETV calculation held on your file, you'd get a PDF of it, not see any formula, and even then they could redact background detail such as certain Scheme specific assumptions etc.

And i understand how crap the whole situation is, but you'll also get nowhere asking the Trustee to pay for legal advice from my experience but worth a try.

Also not sure why you wouldnt speak to their legal counsel, of course theres the ol don' take legal advice from the other side, but for the sake of a conversation which could lead to your change ofg position defense being successful, seems odd to refuse.

I’m not really clear what the grounds would be under a DSAR response for redacting “scheme specific assumptions”.  Normally redactions on DSAR responses are on the grounds that they would interfere with commercial secrets and/or the legitimate privacy rights of another individual.  Assumptions about what interest rates might be in future or growth rates or whatever are neither.

Not sure what wouldnt be clear, A DSAR is for personal information, background assumptions and calculations used to calculate a CETV aren't personal information.

Regardless it will mean mean absolutely nothing to OP complaint  as they have already admitted the error, what part of the process the area comes from is irrelevant