Late husbands COD payment from Pension Provider

xylophone

The policy  held protected rights, was originally taken out with Allied Dunbar and taken over by Zurich.

Presumably your late husband contacted Zurich in 2008 concerning taking benefits and was offered the annuity with Prudential (not Phoenix, my typo).

You appear to have some paperwork relating to this annuity.

What exactly does it have to say about the terms on which the annuity would be paid?

What is said concerning death benefits/widow's pension?

When you advised Prudential of your husband's death, what were you told would happen to his pension?

gmje

There is very little information on the annuity form no reference to death benefits . I cant remember what they said other than to send paperwork and I  cant find any relevant docs

xylophone

In your post on 2 November you said

they wrote to say the payments were ending.

Do you still have the letter?

What was the explanation given?

If you don't have the letter, you could contact Prudential about the matter.

gmje

The Annuity quote says non protected rights gteed min payment period 5 years. the payments stopped after the 60th month. Sept 2013. However it also says "the pension fund includes £22256 a Protected Rights fund. Im not happy to just let this go and want to fight for it. On checking docs it transpires that my husband should never have been sold the pension at age 50

gmje

jamesd said:

Because he'd already bought the annuity the rules change in 2012 should have made no difference. I expect them to pay the full annuity amount for the five years from purchase guarantee period then to cut to an ongoing 50% for you.

It is possible to offer a lump sum instead of continuing to pay. That might be twenty to forty times the ongoing payment you were due to get. They would need your agreement to do this.

Jamesd at the date he took the annuity sept 2008 we were living together for 30 years and even though we explained this they said because we weren't married he couldnt have a joint annuity. We got married once he was diagnosed.I would like them to pay me rather than loose the money and as I  have said in a later thread whilst digging I discovered that he was sold this pension at age 50 which should never have happened. 

jamesd

Married or not makes no difference with protected rights. It was mandatory to sell dual life (edit: unless unmarried and choosing to opt out). You seem to have a valid complaint that they disregarded your request and the protected rights requirements which would have fulfilled it.

xylophone

Married or not makes no difference with protected rights. It was mandatory to sell dual life.

I wonder if this was the case? See this  (presumably produced for Pru advisers).

https://www.mandg.com/pru/adviser/en-gb/insights-events/insights-library/what-is-annuity#:~:text=Protected Rights Annuities,woman of the same age)

Protected Rights Annuities

Annuities paid from 'protected rights' pension funds were previously subject to some specific legislation.

These were:

• the annuity must be calculated based on unisex rates (i.e. the annuity rate used must be the same for a man and woman of the same age)
  
  
• if the member is married the annuity must include a survivor's annuity
  
  
• where a guaranteed period is included it cannot be more than 5 years.

The Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes (Protected Rights) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1537

The OP and her late spouse were not married at the time that the annuity was purchased.

jamesd

It was mandatory when married but could be opted out of if unmarried, something the parties in this case specifically said they didn't want to do when they requested dual life:

"(2) The rate of the pension or annuity shall be determined—

(a)without regard to the sex of the member; and

(b)in the case of—

(i)protected rights derived from guaranteed minimum pensions by virtue of regulation 3(a) or payments or contributions in respect of employment in a tax year commencing before the principal appointed day, without regard to the marital status of the member;

(ii)a married member whose protected rights derived from section 9(2B) rights by virtue of regulation 3(b) or payments or contributions in respect of employment in a tax year commencing on or after the principal appointed day, on the basis that the member, in the event of his death, will leave a widow or widower; and

(iii)an unmarried member whose protected rights derived from section 9(2B) rights by virtue of regulation 3(b) or payments or contributions in respect of employment in a tax year commencing on or after the principal appointed day, as if in the event of that member’s death he or she will leave a widow or widower, except where the member agreed to the rate being determined on his or her life only."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1537/made

And:

"at the date he took the annuity sept 2008 we were living together for 30 years and even though we explained this they said because we weren't married he couldnt have a joint annuity"

So Prudential seems to have misrepresented the law when refusing to sell a dual life annuity.

gmje

Thankyou very much ,we said at the time that we should have been allowed,but not being pension expets how could we argue with someone who was .......allegedly. I will now take this up with them. im so grateful for you both sticking with me on this.

gmje

UPDATE I have written back and the Pru are blaming Zuric and Zuric are blaming the Pru saying they produced the annuity quote. The Annuity quote has both company names on so I sent them both a new letter telling them to sort out whos responsible to pay me.