Ubs Uk Pension And Life Assurance Scheme · CAS-78191-T7X0

CAS-78191-T7X0

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme UBS (UK) Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents UBS Pension Trustee Company Limited (the Trustee)

Willis Towers Watson (WTW, the Administrator)

Outcome

Complaint Summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the key points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

1 The Pensions Ombudsman’s guidance for the various levels of distress and inconvenience, which is set out in a fact sheet, the last version of which is dated September 2018 and is updated from time to time. See: https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/publication/files/Updated-Non- financial-injustice-September-2018-20.pdf 1 CAS-78191-T7X0 Mr S was an employee of SG Warburg from December 1982, when he was aged 24, to April 1986. After he left its employment, SG Warburg was purchased by UBS. Following that, the S.G. Warburg & Co Ltd Pension & Life Assurance Scheme merged with another scheme, changed its name and is now the Scheme. At present, WTW is the Administrator of the Scheme.

On leaving SG Warburg, Mr S took up employment in the United States of America (USA) where he still resides.

On 6 October 2020, Mr S contacted WTW about his pension and was asked for security information so that it could progress his query. On 7 October 2020, Mr S provided the requested information. On 21 October 2020, WTW stated it had been unable to locate a record of him, based on the information supplied. It requested further information, which Mr S sent on 21 October 2020. He received no further response at this time from WTW.

On 14 March 2021, Mr S sent WTW a copy of his P60 for 1984-85, and a copy of his Schedule E income tax information for that year.

On 22 March 2021, WTW wrote to Mr S saying its records did not show him holding a policy or benefit entitlement in the Scheme. It said this could be because he did not join the Scheme during his employment, as there was no automatic enrolment at that time. Alternatively, it said, Mr S may have received a refund of contributions on leaving employment, which had been possible at that time for members with less than 5 years’ Scheme membership.

On 23 April 2021, Mr S contacted WTW stating that:

11.1. He had been employed by SG Warburg between December 1982 and April 1986;

11.2. At that time, staff joined the Scheme after 6 months’ probation, when membership was backdated to commencement of employment;

11.3. As the Scheme was non-contributory, there had been no reason for him to have opted out;

11.4. He requested that WTW send him a signed copy of his opt-out letter, if it believed he had opted out;

11.5. Further, he had not transferred his pension to another scheme because he was leaving the UK to take up employment in the USA, which would have made a pension transfer more difficult than if he had stayed in the UK;

11.6. Had there been such a transfer, it would have left a clear paper trail, he claimed and he asked WTW to provide copies of this paperwork.

On 4 May 2021, WTW wrote to say that it had been unable to locate any documentation for him regarding the Scheme, which suggested he had either opted out or transferred out. Alternatively, the lack of any records for Mr S and the fact he 2 CAS-78191-T7X0 had less than 5 years’ Scheme membership could suggest that he had received a refund of contributions at the end of his employment. Again it asked for any paperwork Mr S could provide in evidence of Scheme membership, and confirmation that he had neither received a refund nor transferred benefits to another scheme. It confirmed its inability to prove that he had paid into the Scheme and was therefore unable to calculate any potential benefits due now.

On 5 May 2021, Mr S wrote to WTW and asked:

13.1. For confirmation it did not have a record of him opting out of the Scheme – because it had not mentioned being in possession of a signed copy of his opt-out letter;

13.2. For confirmation it had no paperwork to evidence the transfer of his pension.

On 17 May 2021, WTW wrote to Mr S saying:

14.1. At the time of his employment, employees were eligible to become Scheme members after 12 months’ service with a participating employer and if they had met certain criteria, for example, having attained the age of 25;

14.2. The SG Warburg Scheme Rules at the time of Mr S’ employment stated that he must be a “qualifying member” in order to be entitled to a pension upon leaving the Scheme. To be a qualifying Scheme member, a member must have 5 years’ pensionable service. As Mr S’ period of service was less than 5 years, it concluded that he did not hold any pension benefit within the Scheme.

On 25 May 2021, Mr S wrote to WTW to acknowledge its points set out on 17 May 2021, namely that a qualifying member required 5 years’ service. As this was different from what he had been told previously, Mr S requested a copy of the SG Warburg Scheme documents which confirmed the following:

15.1. The SG Warburg’s Scheme’s Rules, including those for a Warburg employee to be considered a qualifying member, and

15.2. The period when these Rules were in force.

He received no response.

On 14 June 2021, Mr S wrote to WTW asking for an update.

On 16 June 2021, WTW responded to say it had been unable to locate any information. However, it had approached the Trustee for guidance and it re-supplied the information provided in its previous correspondence of 17 May 2021, set out at paragraph 14 above, regarding the qualifying requirements of the Scheme. WTW said that, if Mr S still believed he held benefit entitlement in the Scheme, he should provide:

3 CAS-78191-T7X0 17.1. A leaver/pension statement which would confirm benefits held in the Scheme;

17.2. Policy/Reference number during employment;

17.3. Home address during employment;

17.4. Estimated dates of service;

17.5. Date of birth; and

17.6. National Insurance Number.

On 2 July 2021, Mr S responded to say that the information had already been requested by WTW on 21 October 2020, and that he had supplied what was in his possession on 27 October 2020 and on 14 March 2021. He also said that WTW’s assertion regarding the Rules, without supporting documentation, raised many questions and was not a substitute for supplying him with the copy of the Rules, as he had previously requested. He expressed his disappointment and bemusement regarding:

18.1. The different eligibility requirements provided by WTW staff in previous responses; and

18.2. The non-provision of the eligibility rules he had previously requested.

He also stated that he wished to initiate a formal complaint, asking how to do this and seeking information on the timing of the complaints process at WTW

On 12 July 2021, WTW wrote to Mr S to confirm that it had been unable to locate the information he had previously supplied. Accordingly, it had requested this again on 16 June 2021 so that it could refer the information to the Trustee in order to obtain further guidance. It also provided a copy of the complaints process for Mr S’ information.

On 26 July 2021, Mr S registered a formal complaint citing three principal points of complaint:

21.1. Inconsistent responses. Differing reasons for denying his request were given:

21.1.1. First, he was informed there were no records showing him as holding a policy;

21.1.2. Non-provision of Scheme Rules. He had requested a copy of the Rules, including those for an SG Warburg employee to be considered as a qualifying member;

21.1.3. The period when those rules were in force. This information was not provided and no reason for this non-provision was given.

4 CAS-78191-T7X0 21.2. Incomplete responses. After suggesting he may have opted out or transferred out of the Scheme, WTW never provided any response to his request to confirm this assertion.

21.3. Slow responses:

21.3.1. He did not receive an initial response to his October 2020 enquiry about eligibility until April 2021;

21.3.2. He only received a response to his request of 23 April 2021 which he repeated on 5 May 2021 and 2 July 2021, regarding the formal complaints procedure, on 12 July 2021;

21.3.3. He requested the Scheme Rules on 25 May 2021 but only received them on 29 November 2021 after submitting a formal complaint;

21.3.4. He submitted his formal complaint on 26 July 2021 but only received a response on 29 November 2021, a far longer time than the four weeks stated in the complaint procedure rules.

21.4. Examples of not providing information:

21.4.1. WTW repeated information requests first made on 21 October 2020 and repeated on 16 June 2021, for information that had been provided in October 2020 and March 2021. This behaviour together with the issues mentioned in points 26.1 and 26.2 above made Mr S feel that his enquiries were not being dealt with in good faith.

On 12 November 2021, Mr S received an email from WTW attaching its response to his complaint, which noted its failures in the lack of proper information and untimely responses. It offered him the sum of £500 for the distress and inconvenience he had suffered. This email said the Scheme Rules were attached, but they were not.

On that day, Mr S responded to WTW and requested the Trust Deed and Scheme Rules be sent to him. He said he had only just received the rules of eligibility for the Scheme, which he had first requested on 25 May 2021. The long delay in providing the Rules highlighted the very severe shortcomings of the administration of his complaint. In addition, the requests for duplicate information and the lack of adherence to WTW’s own complaint procedure schedule (more than four months to respond, rather than the four weeks mentioned in the complaints schedule) were important shortcomings. Further, the compensation offered was not commensurate with the shortcomings he had experienced and the damage caused to him. He contended that a sum of £5,000 would be more appropriate compensation.

On 21 November 2021, UBS’ Head of Benefits issued its Internal Disputes Resolution Process Stage 1 (IDRP1) response to Mr S, noting that:

24.1. First, he believed he was entitled to a pension, having been employed by SG Warburg from December 1982 to April 1986;

5 CAS-78191-T7X0 24.2. Secondly, he believed that his enquiries had not been dealt with in good faith, as a result of the delays and poor communication he had received.

24.3. It did not uphold his complaint regarding entitlement to a benefit under the Scheme, due to his ineligibility in that he did not meet the criteria to be a qualifying member. Further, HMRC had confirmed Nr S did not have a Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) so he did not have any benefits under the Scheme.

24.4. However, in recognition of the delays and the failure to provide information, it continued to offer Mr S the sum of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

On 16 December 2021, Mr S wrote to UBS’ Head of Benefits in response to the IDRP1 letter, saying he did not accept the IDRP1 findings. He said that the Trust Deed and Rules were not attached to the earlier letter of 12 November 2021. He only received a response on 29 November 2021, finally clarifying the rules of eligibility, which he had first requested on May 25 2021.

In respect of the administrative issues, Mr S said the long delay in providing the Rules highlighted the shortcomings of the administration of his complaint. Additionally, WTW’s requests for duplicates of information he had previously provided and its failure to adhere to the four weeks stipulated in its complaints procedure were important shortcomings. He maintained that the sum of £500 was inadequate compensation for the distress and inconvenience suffered and said a sum of £5,000 would be in line with the trouble and distress caused by the poor handling of his complaint.

On 21 February 2022, the Chair of the Administration and Rules Committee of the Trustee of the Scheme issued its IDRP2 response to Mr S, saying:

27.1. The first element of his complaint under IDRP 1 regarding eligibility had not been repeated in his IDRP2 complaint. Accordingly, it did not comment on that further, referring to the explanation of the issue set out in its IDRP1.

27.2. Mr S’ remaining items of complaint were as follows:

27.2.1.1. The delay in being provided with the Scheme’s Trust Deed and Rules by WTW; and

27.2.1.2. The delays by WTW in responding to his complaint under IDRP1.

27.3. It noted that Mr S had rejected the sum of £500 in recognition of the non- financial injustice he had suffered, and that he had requested a payment of £5,000.

27.4. WTW had failed to provide Mr S with a copy of the Scheme’s Trust Deed and Rules following his request on 25 May 2021, and had not offered him any explanation for this oversight. Further, WTW also neglected to attach the

6 CAS-78191-T7X0 Rules to the IDRP1, with Mr S only receiving them on 29 November 2021. It said WTW should have provided Mr S with a copy of the Rules and an explanation sooner. It acknowledged the delay in providing Mr S with a copy of the Trust Deed and Rules, including the failure to attach them to the IDRP1 response.

27.5. It also agreed that there were shortcomings in WTW’s handling of Mr S’ queries and complaint. It considered the non-financial injustice he had suffered was commensurate with the “significant” category set out in TPO’s Guidance on redress for non-financial injustice.

27.6. It also said WTW had failed to acknowledge Mr S’ IDRP1 complaint, leading to delays in considering and responding to it. Its normal standard was to be able to respond to an IDRP1 complaint was within two months of receipt, but it had failed in this case. It repeated the apologies it had offered in the IDRP1 response. It confirmed this delay fell below its usual standards and it was investigating the reasons for the delay.

27.7. However, the Trustee noted that Mr S was consistently informed that he was not entitled to benefits from the Scheme, which remained the case.

27.8. Its decision was as follows:

27.8.1.1. It was therefore prepared to repeat its offer of £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to him.

27.8.1.2. It was satisfied that this award was in line with TPO Guidance on non- financial injustice. It explained that an award given must balance compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused against the limited nature of the Scheme’s resources. Any excessive award would constitute an improper distribution of Scheme assets, that would prejudice the interests of other Scheme members.

27.9. Mr S had the right of appeal to TPO.

On March 17 2022, Mr S wrote to the Chair of the Administration and Rules Committee of the Scheme and said:

28.1. He believed what had been shared with him contained material omissions and “enormously understated” the financial injustice caused to him, as well and the pain and suffering he had experienced. The offer of £500 was totally inadequate, and “absent a significantly higher offer of at least £2,160”, he would continue to pursue his complaint through TPO.

28.2. He set out all the various issues that he had previously listed in his complaint of 26 July 2021, as set out at paragraph 22 above.

28.3. On the matter of Scheme membership, he said the assertion that he was consistently informed he was not entitled to benefits was incorrect. He had

7 CAS-78191-T7X0 received no response at all from WTW for almost 6 months before being informed in March 2021 that the records did not show him holding a policy or entitlement in the Scheme. Only on 17 May 2021 did WTW acknowledge that he was a member of the Scheme, but did not qualify for benefits under the Scheme, due to being a member for less than 5 years. The delays and inconsistent information from WTW created severe distress and injustice.

28.4. WTW asserted that possible reasons for it having no record of his participation in the Scheme could be that he may have opted out, or transferred out of the Scheme. On April 23 2021, Mr S noted that he had not opted-out or transferred out and that he had asked WTW to provide a copy of his signed opt-out letter or other documents that would offer evidence of a transfer. WTW had not responded to this request, despite his follow-up correspondence which he sent on 5 May 2021. This behaviour compounded the severe distress and injustice that he had experienced.

28.5. In respect of the comment in the IDRP2 response that balance must be achieved between compensation for distress and inconvenience and the obligations of the Scheme. Mr S said it was the responsibility of the Administrator and the Trustee to administer the Scheme and related enquiries “efficiently, accurately, and promptly”. Any liability incurred for not doing so should be discharged by the Administrator and Trustee, not the Scheme. The assertion that compensation should be limited because the Scheme’s resources are limited was not valid and ignored important responsibilities of the Administrator and Trustee.

28.6. Regarding financial injustice, Mr S noted the Scheme’s acknowledgement of the “many, important, and long delays” of the Trustee and WTW. These delays highlighted the very severe shortcomings of the administration of his complaint. Additionally, the request by WTW for duplicate information was a further important shortcoming. These factors and the others he had noted were unmerited and the delays were unreasonably long. Moreover, they “appeared to be aimed at deterring Mr S from pursuing his enquiry and from receiving the information that he had requested. They created very severe distress and took considerable time and pain to address”.

28.7. Based on the issues he had raised, he strongly believed that he had suffered non-financial hardship. He noted that TPO’s recommended award in the Guidance for severe hardship was £2,000 in November 2018. Considering inflation of 8% between November 2018 and March 17 2022, the date of his letter, the amount of compensation for this severe non-financial hardship should be £2,160. If the Chair chose not to do so, he would continue to pursue his complaint with TPO.

8  CAS-78191-T7X0 The Trustee’s position Mr S was ineligible to receive any Scheme benefits as he did not meet the criteria to be a qualifying member. Further, HMRC had confirmed Mr S had no GMP, so he did not have any benefits under the Scheme. Since Mr S did not challenge these findings at the IDRP2 stage, the Trustee took it that he had accepted that outcome.

The Trustee accepted that the service was of a lower level than it would have liked and acknowledged that there had been delays and a failure to provide information. Having considered the matter further, it remained of the view that the sum of £500 on offer was appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr S.

Mr S’ position He believes the cumulative impact of the long delays, unwillingness to provide information and the inconsistency of that information created severe non-financial hardship. He believes he should be awarded a payment in line with TPO’s recommended award for severe hardship, contained in the Guidance, plus interest.

Adjudicator’s Opinion Mr S’ complaint was considered by one of our Adjudicators, who concluded that no further action was required by the Trustee or the Administrator. I agree with the Adjudicator’s findings, which are summarised below:

UBS and WTW had explained to Mr S why he had no current entitlement to benefits under the Scheme, which he appeared to have accepted. However, the matter of the level of payment which should be paid to Mr S in respect of the distress and inconvenience he had suffered remained to be resolved.

The Adjudicator agreed that the service provided to Mr S was inadequate. However, payments in recognition of such service were not intended to be punitive, but rather, to serve as a token intended to acknowledge the time and effort that Mr S had to expend in pursuit of his complaint.

She noted Mr S had to ask more than once on several occasions before being provided with information. She acknowledged that Mr S had found the process distressing, but considered that it did not exceed the level of “significant”. Mr S was subjected to delays in his early attempts to obtain the information he needed. However, after the initial lapse in service, he was provided with detailed information when he requested it.

The Adjudicator was of the view that WTW and UBS had taken reasonable steps to provide answers to Mr S, and to deal with the poor service. She concluded the offer of £500 was adequate for the circumstances of the complaint and that Mr S should contact UBS to arrange payment.

9  CAS-78191-T7X0 Mr S’ additional comments

In relation to his complaint against the Trustee and WTW:

He contended that WTW would never have provided a copy of the Scheme Rules, but for TPO’s intervention. He regarded this unwillingness to provide the Scheme Rules as “material, important and critical”, and that WTW’s conduct was “egregious, and probably illegal” and “could deprive Scheme members of financial benefits due” [to them]. He believed such conduct should be “severely penalised, requiring censure and discipline of those responsible, together with a “substantial financial penalty…”.

He seeks for TPO to oversee the implementation of significant penalties to ensure there is no repeat by UBS and WTW of the conduct that he experienced. He wants to be kept abreast of the penalties levied by TPO in this connection.

Additionally, he seeks an increase to the distress and inconvenience payment he has been offered by the Respondent.

Ombudsman’s decision

2 For example, see Westminster City Council v Haywood [1996] 2 All ER 467 (obiter), as confirmed in City and County of Swansea v Johnson [1999] 17 PBLR, and in also later cases. 3 Following Baugniet v Capita Employee Benefits [2017] EWHC 501 (Ch) and Smith v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals [2018] 004 PBLR 004 (011) 10  CAS-78191-T7X0

Dominic Harris Pensions Ombudsman

18 March 2026

11