Medusa Pension Scheme · CAS-32331-Q1P4

CAS-32331-Q1P4

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs D

Scheme Medusa Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent The Trustee of the Medusa Pension Scheme (the Trustee)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

• Re-consider the decision to distribute death benefits under the Scheme.

• In re-considering the matter, Mr D had to invite Mrs D to make any further submissions in support of her claim to a share of the distribution.

1 CAS-32331-Q1P4 • In communicating the new decision, Mr D had to highlight the Scheme Rules used in making the decision and state the reasons for him appropriating the shares.

• Pay Mrs D £500 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of procedural fairness in making the original decision.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

2 CAS-32331-Q1P4

Mr D accepted the Adjudicator’s Opinion, but Mrs D did not. So, the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mrs D’s further comments are summarised below:-

• She disagreed with the Opinion on the basis that Mr D had repeatedly shown a “cavalier attitude towards this process” and so she could not trust him to make an informed and unbiased decision when dividing the death benefit.

• She provided a chronology of events in relation to the Scheme, with an explanation of their importance. 3 CAS-32331-Q1P4 • As an organisation that is holding trustees to account, she said my Office should ensure that all processes are followed. In this instance, Mr D should be forced to account for all funds in and out of the Scheme, and provide reasonable minutes for his decisions.

• Mr D has remade his decision under duress and disregard to my Office. The decision has been made on “unprovable” and “contentious” factors. So, she expected my Office to hold Mr D to account and ask for more documentary evidence to support his decision.

• Considering my Office had stated that it was more likely than not that Mr D did not issue a new decision in May 2019, she questions how Mr D could be trusted to make a new, fair decision.

• She cannot trust Mr D, because of the mishandling of her late father’s pension benefits as well as Mr D’s behaviour the years before her late father died. She does not believe Mr D could be impartial. So, she asks me to substitute the Mr D’s decision with my own.

• She quoted a previous decision, P00816, where she believes the Pensions Ombudsman at the time, substituted the trustee’s decision for his own.

I note the additional points raised by Mrs D, but I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

4 CAS-32331-Q1P4

I uphold Mrs D’s complaint.

5 CAS-32331-Q1P4 Directions

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 04 November 2020

6