Is a Trustee allowed to stop paying a pension?

Marcon

p00hsticks said:

I'm following this with interest as I recently received a similar letter, dated only a week before my monthly pension payment was due and which arrived two days after the pension payment didn't hit my bank...

I understand why they do it but thought the timeframe was far too short - luckily I had funds that I could live on for the month and have received two months payment now that I have returned the form. 

A week wouldn't give the payroll team time to stop the payment. I wonder if you missed (or missed out on!) a previous letter? Was there a deadline for a reply, or any reference to 'previous requests'?

I'd raise the matter with the scheme and point out the issue - something  doesn't sound right at all.  

M_j_t

Juno_Moneta said:

Will have a good think about this and what, if anything, to do.

By “If anything” - you make it sound optional - if it was me it would be a no brainer to provide the basic information requested. I’d have sent the form back same day!

After all - they are ultimately trying to protect your pension by ensuring it never gets paid to the wrong person. 

It does not mean "to or not to fill in the form", that is underway, it's about the implicit threat to stop payment and the time frame thereof.

As p00hsticks  has said this does happen and could have happened just because I went away.

I'm actually in receipt of 3 UK company based defined benefit pensions one since turning 60 (a T32) in that 8 years or so, never had such a request from them. It is obviously not a legal requirement, otherwise all 3 would be undertaking this.


Keep_pedalling said:

M_j_t said:

Sometimes a letter can take a month to arrive in Australia from the UK. This shortened time frame to complete is scary, as should the payments be stopped my guess is that it would involve a great deal of running around to have payments re-instated and the dirt out here does not taste good.

There are faster letter services.

https://auspost.com.au/sending/delivery-speeds-and-coverage/international-delivery-times

The response (completed form) can, and will be, sent via email. The time that is of concern is the request that is posted in the UK, by the provider, to eventually arrive here in Australia. Not aware of me being able to have any say in how that is undertaken. What I can say is that the provider has my email address  (they have used this email for other communications), so they could have used that.

Marcon

M_j_t said:

Juno_Moneta said:

Will have a good think about this and what, if anything, to do.

By “If anything” - you make it sound optional - if it was me it would be a no brainer to provide the basic information requested. I’d have sent the form back same day!

After all - they are ultimately trying to protect your pension by ensuring it never gets paid to the wrong person. 

It does not mean "to or not to fill in the form", that is underway, it's about the implicit threat to stop payment and the time frame thereof.

As p00hsticks  has said this does happen and could have happened just because I went away.

I'm actually in receipt of 3 UK company based defined benefit pensions one since turning 60 (a T32) in that 8 years or so, never had such a request from them. It is obviously not a legal requirement, otherwise all 3 would be undertaking this.


Keep_pedalling said:

M_j_t said:

Sometimes a letter can take a month to arrive in Australia from the UK. This shortened time frame to complete is scary, as should the payments be stopped my guess is that it would involve a great deal of running around to have payments re-instated and the dirt out here does not taste good.

There are faster letter services.

https://auspost.com.au/sending/delivery-speeds-and-coverage/international-delivery-times

The response (completed form) can, and will be, sent via email. The time that is of concern is the request that is posted in the UK, by the provider, to eventually arrive here in Australia. Not aware of me being able to have any say in how that is undertaken. What I can say is that the provider has my email address  (they have used this email for other communications), so they could have used that.

You do seem a bit too focussed on seeing this as a 'threat', when the scheme has simply explained what might happen.

There's something very wrong with what happened in Pooh's case; it certainly isn't typical and sounds as if a previous letter had gone astray.

Have you asked/authorised the scheme to use email to contact you?

Silvertabby

I'm actually in receipt of 3 UK company based defined benefit pensions one since turning 60 (a T32) in that 8 years or so, never had such a request from them. It is obviously not a legal requirement, otherwise all 3 would be undertaking this.

Not a legal requirement, but certainly written into the schemes rules, perhaps just at different ages.  Your other two pensions will send you similar letters eventually.

M_j_t

Marcon said:

You do seem a bit too focussed on seeing this as a 'threat', when the scheme has simply explained what might happen.

There's something very wrong with what happened in Pooh's case; it certainly isn't typical and sounds as if a previous letter had gone astray.

Have you asked/authorised the scheme to use email to contact you?

May is very often taken to be will (in most cases) (well at least in the Australian Legislation that I've looked at). Regarding focus, your opinion v mine and of course mine is swayed by the fact that there is the potential that my entitlements will be stopped. Perhaps if it were you as the recipient such a blasé attitude may not be as evident. Might not be the best choice of words, but no offense meant. 

As for authorising email, I supplied it in my profile; no tick boxes for do/don't use for this or that.
Saying that I did in fact request use of email as part of the 3 attempts and 3 months delay to get the 6 month pack and valuation. Admittedly the provider has changed (Mercer then, now Aptia).

Letters going astray, unheard in Australia (NOT) especially as we are a corner house (never again). We could be 10 street1 or 2 street2 (made up street names). Sheesh the utilities have gone through virtually every permutation including / between both numbers and we are still 10/2 street2 (gave up after numerous requests to use 2 Street2). The post we get is frequently for 2-8 (there is no 10) street1. Not aware if our post has gone elsewhere but it wouldn't be a surprise. Then there's the snails that appear to love paper (no post going through a letterbox into the home here, letter boxes are in the street, rain (yes we have plenty) and snails get into the letter boxes).

As such, they very reason you say not to worry (Pooh's case), increases the worry. 

sheramber

M_j_t said:

Flugelhorn said:

You don't say what info they are after but "proof of life" is one of the things they check up, particularly if you are living overseas etc 

Name, address if changed, contact number dob NI number and details (name, address, occupation, contact number), signature to the details and confirmation they have known the person receiving the pension. I'm aware they check-up (I also believe that I read something about them especially targeting overseas). 


Re 4. Fraud or Misrepresentation

Many thanks for response Juno_Moneta that's very informative.

Nothing in the letter specifically mentioning fraud or misrepresentation. Just "accurate and up to date records".

If they had initiated this a month ago, then as my partner was on leave, the deadline would have been missed. They also have my email and obviously did not use that (I frequently check junk folders).

Will have a good think about this and what, if anything, to do.

You have received it in time and it has not arrived when your partner was on leave, so neither are a problem in this case.

If it had not arrived in time or when your partner was on leave, then you would have a reason to complain. 

Hoenir

M_j_t said:

So what is the legality of this threat/demand from what I would thought a party who is duty bound to provide the entitlement(s)?

The Scheme Trustees have many responsibilties. Unsurprisingly mitgatatiing the risk of fraud being one.  Obtaining confirmation that an overseas recepient is still alive is a simple basic task. 

Marcon

M_j_t said:

Marcon said:

You do seem a bit too focussed on seeing this as a 'threat', when the scheme has simply explained what might happen.

There's something very wrong with what happened in Pooh's case; it certainly isn't typical and sounds as if a previous letter had gone astray.

Have you asked/authorised the scheme to use email to contact you?

May is very often taken to be will (in most cases) (well at least in the Australian Legislation that I've looked at). Regarding focus, your opinion v mine and of course mine is swayed by the fact that there is the potential that my entitlements will be stopped. Perhaps if it were you as the recipient such a blasé attitude may not be as evident. Might not be the best choice of words, but no offense meant. 

Not so much 'attitude' or 'opinion' as decades of experience, applied without emotion or catastrophising.

Since you did receive the letter and hopefully have now returned the form, it's all a bit of a non-issue, since your entitlements aren't going to be impacted.

Brie

When I did admin for an inhouse scheme we'd filter all of our records of those in receipt of a pension against the various electronic death registers that were easily accessible.  We'd also filter against anyone who may have contacted us in the last couple of years for whatever reason - change of bank details, change of address, query.  Where nothing was found in either of those searches an "are you alive" letter would be sent. 

As I recall we gave 3 months for a response but did consider what other issues someone might have preventing a response.  We did have a  number of pensioners in the middle east and due to Arab Spring uprisings knew they were going to be unlikely to either get our letters or be able to respond appropriately - i.e. they couldn't get their response counter-signed by a police officer, doctor, bank official - so extra time was allowed for that.  But that's what you can do when it's in house admin rather than being a contracted admin like Capita, WTW, etc who must simply abide by trustees rules.  

p00hsticks

Marcon said:

p00hsticks said:

I'm following this with interest as I recently received a similar letter, dated only a week before my monthly pension payment was due and which arrived two days after the pension payment didn't hit my bank...

I understand why they do it but thought the timeframe was far too short - luckily I had funds that I could live on for the month and have received two months payment now that I have returned the form. 

A week wouldn't give the payroll team time to stop the payment. I wonder if you missed (or missed out on!) a previous letter? Was there a deadline for a reply, or any reference to 'previous requests'?

I'd raise the matter with the scheme and point out the issue - something  doesn't sound right at all.  

No, there was no indication in the letter that this was a reminder or follow up to any earlier communication - I have mailed the company to say that they acted far too quickly in stopping the pension and should have given me time to receive and reply to the letter., but I've not had a response as yet.