Railways Pension Scheme · CAS-25367-B5T0

CAS-25367-B5T0

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr Y

Scheme Railways Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents Railways Pension Trustee Ltd (the Trustee) RPMI Ltd (the Administrator)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

“It is important that you provide all details on the form, including telephone numbers, as we may need to check the information you supply. We appreciate that this may cause some inconvenience but it offers protection which safeguards the interest of all pensioners…

The form must be witnessed by one of the people who are currently in an occupation included in the list below…

1 PO-25519 If the information is not received by 25 July 2018 we must make you aware that the pension payments will be suspended…”

“This is taking a great deal of my time and causing me unbelievable stress and I think a compensation award of £250 would be reasonable and appropriate to this date.”

2 PO-25519

“Having discussed your concerns in detail…it has been agreed, on this occasion, that as a result of the discrepancies on the Form, and as the signature on your letter dated 1 December 2018 matches your signature held in our records, your pension can be reinstated…

…your next pension payment will be made on 21 December 2018, and will include all arrears of pension due…

…taking into account the issue and frustration you have experienced with this process to date, as a goodwill gesture we would like to offer you compensation of £250…”

“Although you believe you have been penalised for stating the form is not fit for purpose, as you will be aware, since satisfying ourselves of your continued existence, your pension has been reinstated and all arrears of pension due, have been paid. In addition you have been paid an amount of compensation totalling £250.

On review, however, although our main concern was the security of your pension and ensuring it continued to be paid to the correct person, I do concede we could have taken a more pragmatic approach with regards to confirming your existence.

With this in mind, I believe it appropriate to increase the offer of compensation to a total of £750.00 (£500.00 in addition to the £250.00 already paid) in full and final settlement…”

3 PO-25519 Summary of Mr Y’s position

4 PO-25519

Adjudicator’s Opinion

5 PO-25519

6 PO-25519

• His complaint had been ongoing for four years because no one involved, apart from himself, had done what they said they would do in a timely manner. Failings had not been accepted and neither TPO’s Office nor the Administrator had acted within their timescales.

• He had suggested compensation for his financial costs. These included costs for telephone calls, recorded delivery postage, ink, paper and other expenses he had incurred up to 28 August 2018, “for doing the administration work of which [the Administrator was] clearly incapable.”

• The Trustee implied the £250 offered was to resolve his issue in a reasonable and appropriate manner. This is “blatant nonsense”.

• The correspondence he previously sent to TPO’s Office clearly stated that he had rejected the £250. He did not accept the £250 for the stress and inconvenience, it was placed in his bank account without his knowledge and consent, in the hope he would go away. The £250 “hardly” covered his costs and expenses.

• The Administrator continues to provide inaccurate information to TPO’s Office. The Administrator has never treated him with respect, and it appears that it does not have any respect for TPO’s Office.

• He noted TPO’s Office’s guidance on redress for non-financial injustice and that the Adjudicator’s view was that his case fell under the serious category listed in the guidance.

7 PO-25519 • He believes his case is “beyond the serious category... as it has the vast majority of aggravating factors listed in the exceptional category.”

• The Administrator disregarded the IDRP timeline. He had written to the Administrator on over 35 occasions in an attempt to rectify the matter. It had numerus occasions to rectify the situation but repeatedly chose not to.

• The Administrator has not yet rectified the Form for suitable use outside the UK, and it remains adamant that it has done nothing wrong, while admitting the Form is not fit for purpose.

• He does not believe anyone should be forced to engage in criminal activity in order to receive their pension.

Ombudsman’s decision

8 PO-25519

I uphold Mr Y’s complaint in part.

Directions

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 9 August 2021

9