Air Products Plc Pension Plan (PO-372 and PO-4244)

Complaint summary

Mr Belk complains that Mercer, the Plan’s administrators, and the Trustees have:

• illegally reduced his monthly pension from the Plan because they failed to provide him with any evidence of their calculations and also did not obtain his consent before doing so; and
• unfairly sought recovery of overpaid pension payments totalling £1,416.

• He also alleges that Mercer:

• failed to arrange payment of one of his Additional Voluntary Contribution (AVC) funds on a timely basis and offer him compensation calculated on an equitable basis; and
• improperly offered him financial advice in their letter of 2 November 2012.

In Mr Belk’s opinion, Mercer’s actions constitute illegal harassment as defined in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

He also contends that the Trustees incorrectly terminated the second stage of the Plan’s Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP) by refusing to provide a comprehensive reply to the issues which he raised in response to the first stage decision letter dated 31 October 2013.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should not be upheld against Mercer and the Trustees because:

• they were legally entitled to correct Mr Belk’s retirement benefits from the Plan and recover the pension overpayment given his circumstances;
• it was not unreasonable for the Respondents to offer Mr Belk the opportunity (which he duly accepted) to obtain full details of how his revised lower pension payable from Plan had been calculated after the reduction was made;
• Mr Belk has provided insufficient documentary evidence to prove that he is either, entitled to compensation higher than already offered for the late payment of his Standard Life AVC funds, or that he cannot repay the portion of the overpayment which Mercer legitimately proposes deducting from that compensation because of financial hardship;
• they have offered Mr Belk adequate compensation for the late payment of the benefits available to him from his Standard Life AVC policy. This includes £1,000 in  recognition of the distress and inconvenience which he has suffered in dealing with this matter:
• Mercer cannot be expected to increase what is already a satisfactory offer without such evidence;
• Mercer did not give Mr Belk financial advice at any point and did not act illegally; and
• Mr Belk’s complaint under the IDRP was followed through to its conclusion and was not terminated prematurely.