Late husbands COD payment from Pension Provider

gmje

Pru still maintain because we weren't married at the time a joint life was not available .........what can i say to them now?

Marcon

gmje said:

Pru still maintain because we weren't married at the time a joint life was not available .........what can i say to them now?

There's a vast amount of technical jargon/references building up on this thread, which is likely to be doing your head in.

I suggest you make a formal complaint (same letter to Pru and Zurich, making it clear on the face of the letter that you are sending it to both companies and complaining about both of them), setting out in layman's language (don't try to quote piecemeal from this thread - it won't make any difference to this initial approach) what your concerns are; what you believe has been done incorrectly; where you feel your husband was given misleading information; and what you feel needs to be done to put matters right. Include copies of all relevant paperwork you can lay hands on, and then see what transpires.

The insurers have 8 weeks to give you a reply. If you aren't satisfied, you can then complain to an Ombudsman. If it's a complaint of maladministration (and I think that's the case, from what you've said), you can then make a formal complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman.  

Had it been poor financial advice, that would be one for the Financial Ombudsman's Service - but I don't think either insurer has actually given you 'financial advice'.

gmje

Thanks Marcon, essentially thats what I have done,But as I  said the Pru have resonded quite quickly to say .....

"If you were not married when we were asked to produce quotations a joint life annuity income would not have been an option. We are unable to provide a spouse’s income unless you were married at that time."

Marcon

gmje said:

Thanks Marcon, essentially thats what I have done,But as I  said the Pru have resonded quite quickly to say .....

"If you were not married when we were asked to produce quotations a joint life annuity income would not have been an option. We are unable to provide a spouse’s income unless you were married at that time."

If their product offer didn't include a survivor's pension for a non-married partner, and that was made clear at the time of purchase and your husband still went ahead with buying an annuity from them (as opposed to using the open market option and buying elsewhere), that could be a stumbling block. Much depends on what information you have confirming what was said/requested at the time and what your husband was told in return.

gmje

UPDATE this went to the ombudsman in 2024- they didn't pickup until Aug this year and its now ongoing. 

gmje

The ombudsman is trying to fob me off with timelines - saying my late husband should have brought a complaint to them back in 2008. We were stitched up by PRU and Zurich- at that time we didn't know they were stitching us up. The ombudsman has headed this " test case……….. " then fobbed me off. I did think it would go through. I have appealed -will let you know. Is there any recourse if they kick it out again?

gmje

This is still ongoing with ombudsman

gmje

The Pension ombudsman has sighted timeline again and refuses to acknowledge that Pru and Zurich have acted against the law…….199…legislation etc. I know im entitled to a pension from my late husbands Protected Rights. Can anybody offer any further help………like how do I get beyond timescales as an excuse for them not to stand upto these giants

dunstonh

I discovered that he was sold this pension at age 50 which should never have happened. 

That is not a safe assumption. Over the years that contracting out was possible, the level of rebates changed. When the rebates were higher, then contracting out up to about 57 was considered viable. When the rebates were reduced, then the contracting-out Pivotal Age became lower. Every provider had its own Pivotal Age. Tied advisors would have had the Pivotal Ages refreshed each year and given to them on a sheet. IFAs would have received the information from the provider reps. I recall the cards that showed these.

In the case of tied advice, which is what this is likely to be at the original point of sale, it would have been the original date of sale that was the only time the pivotal age was checked.

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

So the key bit of information here is that you are not married at the time of purchase. If the member later marries, the new spouse does not automatically gain contractual survivor rights unless the contract or product terms say so. It does not retrospectively apply to earlier annuity purchases. This was to avoid abuse of the system where a much older annuitant could marry someone in their 20s, giving them the benefits for the rest of their life. If the annuitant was already married to someone in their 20s, then the annuity rate would reflect the increased longevity of the pension payments.

At the time of purchase in 2008, he was unmarried. Therefore, the provider would structure the annuity as single life, with no spouse's protection for Protected Rights.

Whilst it was possible in 2008 for an annuity to include a survivor's pension for someone other than spouse, it was not universal for providers to automatically offer it. Additionally, that option had to be selected by the annuitant when buying the annuity.

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.

The ceding scheme would have no liability. The receiving scheme would only have liability if it was one of their agents that provided advice on the purchase of the product. Pru closed their sales force in 2001.

From what you've said, it doesn't sound like an IFA was used. So the purchase was on a non-advised basis, which means advice protection does not apply.

 We were stitched up by PRU and Zurich- at that time we didn't know they were stitching us up. 

I don't think you were. Prudential would only have issued quotes on the basis that they were asked to provide them. If an advisor had been used, they would have assessed the situation and requested appropriate quotes. Your husband would have then selected the method based on that advice. However, if no adviser was used, the provider would take instruction from the annuitant as to what terms they wanted. If he didn't request a dependent's pension, they would not provide one. If Pru themselves didnt offer a non-married dependent’s pension option, then they would not have offered it as an option. They would only offer options that they had available. This is why time and again, people were and still are told to use the open market option.

The Pension ombudsman has sighted timeline again and refuses to acknowledge that Pru and Zurich have acted against the law

Nothing you've said in the thread suggests they have acted against the law. It seems to be just an unfortunate situation where, at the time of purchase, your husband didn't select the appropriate death benefits. So even if it was within the appropriate time period to raise a complaint, from what you said, there doesn't appear to be grounds for a complaint. However, if an advisor was used, then there still could be.

Marcon

Nothing you've said in the thread suggests they have acted against the law. It seems to be just an unfortunate situation where, at the time of purchase, your husband didn't select the appropriate death benefits. So even if it was within the appropriate time period to raise a complaint, from what you said, there doesn't appear to be grounds for a complaint. However, if an advisor was used, then there still could be.

Just to avoid raising false hopes, even if an advisor was used, the Financial Services Ombudsman is highly likely to rule that the case is time barred: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/expect/time-limits

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82081850#Comment_82081850

The Pensions Ombudsman has already made it clear they won't investigate, given the length of time which has elapsed.

I know im entitled to a pension from my late husbands Protected Rights.

I'm afraid based on what you've said, that's not the case. At the time he took out the annuity, your husband was unmarried and therefore the whole 'pot' was used to buy his single life annuity. Because there was no spouse's pension, he will have received a higher annuity than would otherwise have been the case. I appreciate that is small comfort, but the insurer appears to have acted correctly unless you have definitive proof to show otherwise.