Serious Illness Lump Sum Pension - revoked

whiskyfrank

Hi
Im at the end of my tether on this so looking for some advice.

I have a pension with Barclays that was administered by Wills Tower Watson.

I have been diagnosed with terminal cancer and have less that 12 months to live. Im at peace with this but my pension company have just destroyed my world.

I applied for a Serious Illness Lump Sum from Barclays, they agreed the guaranteed lump sum and sent me the forms which were completed, they then said it would be paid into my account the next day. I supplied an SR1 and doctors evidence which was traumatic.

However on the same day a call handler called me to say they had got the figures wrong and it was 70% less than they said it would be. I'm devastated as I was relying on that money to do a few things while i had some time left. I cant escalate it they simply dont have a system to do that.

They have been callous and have not cared one bit basically saying tough that's what it is and be grateful. I worked for them for decades and when i come to take my money out they have offered me a small lump sum and a pension for my husband when i die, but that's a tiny amount that would not even cover  a shopping bill per month. I paid into the pension and my husband does not want it when i die as he has his own. but basically i cant get the money out that i put in.

They have been so horrible to me im mentally really struggling now. The pension regulator said they would look into it but by the time thats done i probably wont be here as Barclays have to do an investigation that will take weeks and then its weeks again for the regulator.

Any help

Brie

Can you get someone to champion your cause?  Macmillan was my first thought but maybe this is a case of going to a reporter to get them to do a story on how badly you've been treated.  Very public of course which may not be what you want but might be worth a try.  Most papers seem to have a "how awful is this company" section of some sort and there's TV programmes that do similar.  Might start with the BBC and work your way down?

OH - and another - try the Bank Workers Charity.  Don't know if you ever heard of them when you were working but they provide support and sometimes money for anyone connected with a bank.  They were very helpful for me when I needed some legal advice and were always saying that they are really under used.

The Bank Workers Charity (bwcharity.org.uk)

Marcon

whiskyfrank said:

Hi
Im at the end of my tether on this so looking for some advice.

I have a pension with Barclays that was administered by Wills Tower Watson.

I have been diagnosed with terminal cancer and have less that 12 months to live. Im at peace with this but my pension company have just destroyed my world.

I applied for a Serious Illness Lump Sum from Barclays, they agreed the guaranteed lump sum and sent me the forms which were completed, they then said it would be paid into my account the next day. I supplied an SR1 and doctors evidence which was traumatic.

However on the same day a call handler called me to say they had got the figures wrong and it was 70% less than they said it would be. I'm devastated as I was relying on that money to do a few things while i had some time left. I cant escalate it they simply dont have a system to do that.

They have been callous and have not cared one bit basically saying tough that's what it is and be grateful. I worked for them for decades and when i come to take my money out they have offered me a small lump sum and a pension for my husband when i die, but that's a tiny amount that would not even cover  a shopping bill per month. I paid into the pension and my husband does not want it when i die as he has his own. but basically i cant get the money out that i put in.

They have been so horrible to me im mentally really struggling now. The pension regulator said they would look into it but by the time thats done i probably wont be here as Barclays have to do an investigation that will take weeks and then its weeks again for the regulator.

Any help

This isn't the moment to have a long discussion/thread about what you are and aren't 'entitled' to; it's a time for action. The only way that help on this sort of issue is ever 'speeded up' is by going to the press - not something I ever suggest lightly, but in this case...  Try https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/columnist-1066279/Tony-Hetherington-Financial-Mail-Sunday.html

I would also ensure that both the scheme administrators and someone on the trustee board knows you have done so, and why.

I am so sorry you are in this situation.

DRS1

You could try bypassing the administrator and appealing direct to the scheme trustees.  Barclays has member nominated trustee directors as I recall so you could try one of them first.  You could also mention that you have been encouraged to go to the press about this (as indeed you have) but would like to give the scheme a chance to make things right before you do so. 

There will also be an internal dispute resolution procedure you could use but as you say that takes time.

There is also the Pensions Ombudsman but you have to go through the IDR before you get to him I think.

Do you know how they work out the lump sum you should get and was their first figure right (in your view)?  Have they explained how they managed to get it so wrong (in their view)?

whiskyfrank

Thanks for the replies.

Barclays and WTW have discouraged us (in writing) about going to the ombudsman, but have done so anyway. they have been very good and have agreed not to wait for the investigation and to look at this as priority as it seems so offensive to them.

My husband has written to the ceos of both Barclays and WTW today and will continue to contact senior people.  

The offered a lump sum which was guaranteed, they were due to put this in my account but apparently "forgot" that they need to pay my husband a pension as well on my death, he would get twice as much as my when I die. which to me is awful.

I really dont want to go to the press as I want this to be private, its hard enough as it is. But as a last resort i will. We have in the letters told them we will be doing so if its not resolved

Tommyjw

Some realistic comments need to be made and I disagree that this isn't the time to "talk about what you are entitled to"

Assuming this 2nd calculation is correct and I'd be asking for formal confirmation that they have re-checked and it is, that it is just simply what you are entitled to and the Scheme can only pay what you are entitled to, no more, that's it, there's no room to change it.

There is no discretion, there is no "oh this seems low let's bump it by 50%" or pay more because someone seems in a worse situation. There is no oh this person might go to the press let's offer more so they don't, none of that is how this works. These calculations are designed to be calculated fairly across the membership and in the same methodology every time and they just simply won't deviate from that else they would be falling foul of the regulator for not acting fairly to their membership as a whole.

The Ombudsman would do nothing other than request they offer a compensation amount,  which will likely be in the hundreds of £ up to a thousand, to give you an idea. It is good they may look at it, as it can often be 12 months plus before they do due to backlogs or whatever. But there are many, many examples of their peevious decisions of miscalculated benefits and they will describe it as a loss of expectation, youve not actually suffered a financial loss, you are at the end of the day getting paid the amount you should have been, and the administrators do not need to honour the original incorrect value. 

A serious ill health lump sum extinguishes your benefits, not your spouses, it may seem unfair but that's how these benefits work, that's not a WTW thing or something specific to your pension acheme, that isn't going to change.

I'd be asking how it is calculated, often thhe value of your pension is calculated e.g. £1000 per year and an actuarial calculation will give it a factor e.g. 20, so the lump sum paid is £1000 x 20, and then asking why the error occurred in the first place.

I am not trying to downplay how horrible it is, but in these cases posters on this forum often fall foul of believing things will happen when they won't and doing nothing other than getting people's hopes up, when the reality of what happens is different.

DRS1

Tommyjw said:

A serious ill health lump sum extinguishes your benefits, not your spouses, it may seem unfair but that's how these benefits work, that's not a WTW thing or something specific to your pension scheme, that isn't going to change.

I'd be asking how it is calculated, often the value of your pension is calculated e.g. £1000 per year and an actuarial calculation will give it a factor e.g. 20, so the lump sum paid is £1000 x 20, and then asking why the error occurred in the first place.

What you say here makes sense but it leaves me wondering why "forgetting" that there was a spouse made such a difference to the calculation if all they were extinguishing in the first place was the member's benefits.  Doing the sort of sum you show would not change if there was a spouse or no spouse.

Unless this a defined contribution scheme and it is simply a matter of getting the fund value back some of which needs to be kept in order to pay the spouse's pension.   Barclays have made changes over the years so maybe that is it.  I forget how defined contribution schemes deal with serious ill health.

xylophone

In your circumstances, the  disappointment and distress resulting from the Administrator's error must be very hard to bear.

One crumb of comfort might be that if the higher sum had actually  been paid and the error subsequently discovered, (so that

repayment of money already spent would be demanded), the distress for you or your spouse might have been even greater.



 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6560117/provided-incorrect-information-help-any-ideas



It is a very careless error - I imagine that when you applied for the SIHLS, the form required you to state whether or not you had a

spouse still living.


As I understand it (I am not an expert), when the rules of a DB scheme permit the payment of a SIHLS, the first step should be to

establish the existence or not of a spouse ( or civil partner presumably) entitled to survivor's benefits, in particular where there

are Guaranteed Minimum Pension/ Reference Scheme Test benefits involved.


This is because  allowance must be made for the payment of spousal benefits due under these arrangements, in effect restricting

the amount that can be released as a SIHLS.

They have been callous and have not cared one bit basically saying tough that's what it is and be grateful.

Incompetent AND rude?  That is truly reprehensible.

I do hope that these points have been covered in your complaint and that at the least you will receive a humble apology and  

compensation for the upset caused.

dunstonh

There is no discretion, there is no "oh this seems low let's bump it by 50%" or pay more because someone seems in a worse situation. There is no oh this person might go to the press let's offer more so they don't, none of that is how this works. These calculations are designed to be calculated fairly across the membership and in the same methodology every time and they just simply won't deviate from that else they would be falling foul of the regulator for not acting fairly to their membership as a whole.

I had a similar case with someone some years back, and the pension overstated the amount.   The person was also ill, although not terminal, and retired and moved to a new location based on the pension figures.     The error was found and the lower revised figures given.

The ombudsman ruled that a mistake does not give entitlement to a higher amount but did award £250 for inconvenience that got bumped up to £400.

whiskyfrank

I pretty much know that we wont get anything from them as the dont care and are a corporate the computer says no.

They have offered to transfer my entire lump sum to my husbands pension, which means we can take the money out but will end up paying tax as he has already taken his 25%. But at least we get the whole amount I guess, no expert so dont know if this is a good idea or not

Lemon_dr1zzle

With respect, it’s got nothing to do with them being corporate and not caring. 

The regulations of the scheme have to be administered correctly.