Norbord Uk Sterling Pension Scheme · CAS-81732-G9M7

CAS-81732-G9M7

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Ms E

Scheme Norbord UK (Sterling) Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents The Trustee of the Norbord UK (Sterling) Pension Scheme (the Trustee) Mercer (the Administrator)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-81732-G9M7

1 Regulation 6(3) of The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) Regulations 1996: “A member who has made an application for a statement of entitlement may not within a period of twelve months beginning on the date of that application make any further such application unless the rules of the scheme provide otherwise or the trustees allow the member to do so.” 2 CAS-81732-G9M7

Ms E’s position

3 CAS-81732-G9M7

The Trustee’s and the Administrator’s position

Adjudicator’s Opinion

4 CAS-81732-G9M7

5 CAS-81732-G9M7 Both of Ms E’s representatives responded to the Adjudicator’s Opinion. The IFA indicated that while Ms E disagreed with an element of the Adjudicator’s Opinion she had decided to accept it.

A second response was then received from Mr B E, who said that Ms E did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Given the conflicting responses, the complaint was passed to me to consider.

Ms E provided further comments, which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note the additional points raised by Ms E.

Ms E’s additional comments Ms E considered that others have also lost out when claiming their pension benefits from the Scheme.

There had been a number of complaints about the Administrator for exactly the same reason as hers.

Delays in providing information caused by the Administrator and the Trustee meant the Transfer Application could not be returned in time.

A proper analysis could not be completed without a new CETV illustration, retirement illustrations and general information. Because of the delays in providing these, specialist advice could not be provided in time.

In additional comments submitted by Ms E through Mr B E, she said the Adjudicator’s investigation dismissed most of her complaint in in favour of the Trustee.

Ombudsman’s decision

6 CAS-81732-G9M7

A transfer instruction that was ignored

Delays

There is no dispute that a CETV illustration had already been issued to Mr E in the 12 months prior to the request for the new CETV illustration. It is unclear why the IFA felt it could not provide advice based on the earlier CETV illustration, but the provision of the new CETV illustration was at the Trustee’s discretion and chargeable. The Trustee met to decide if it was prepared to provide the new CETV illustration and the fee payable for it. When the new CETV illustration had been produced, the Trustee referred it to the Scheme’s actuary for review. These were reasonable actions which I find did not amount to maladministration by the Trustee.

7 CAS-81732-G9M7

Death benefits paid

Payment of the new CETV after Mr E’s death

8 CAS-81732-G9M7

The Administrator ignored complaints

General difficulties impacting other members of the Scheme

Summary

Therefore, I do not uphold Ms E’s complaint.

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman 1 March 2024

9