Complaints to Pensions Ombudsman up 17%

COMPLAINTS TO the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman increased by 17 per cent in 2007, with more than 515 complaints received, according to the ombudsman's annual report, published yesterday.

Phone inquiries were up by about 16 per cent to 3,600, while the ombudsman's office closed 584 files during the year - an increase of 90 per cent on 2006.

Pensions Ombudsman Paul Kenny cited the "old regulars" - target benefit schemes and employers in the construction industry - as featuring heavily among the complaints during the year. Another source of complaints were cases involving pensioners who were missold or misbought the SSIA pensions incentive, which, according to Mr Kenny, "really wasn't intended for them in the first place".

Mr Kenny noted that during 2007 more than one-third of cases were closed by mediation, the preferred method. However, he added that there would probably always be a "hard core of people who refuse to engage with my investigators".

The ombudsman also published a Digest of Cases, which gives examples of the kinds of complaints made to his office, including the following:

l Complaint: A man who had signed up for the Government's SSIA incentive scheme, under which a subsidy was paid by the Government to those who paid up to €7,500 of the proceeds of an SSIA into a pension arrangement, claimed he had been misled, as he was paying tax at the top rate, and did not receive the payment he expected when the PRSA matured after 12 months.

Outcome: During the investigation it became clear that the complainant had incorrectly formed the view, unsupported by any of the documents he had received, that the PRSA proceeds would all be tax free. The complaint was rejected.

Complaint: An employee had discussed the issue of pension provision with his employer several times, but was always told that it was not possible for the employer to make pension provision for him due to the financial circumstances of the business.

However, he subsequently learned that a colleague had been included in the pension scheme, following his own discussions.

Outcome: The documentation governing the pension scheme was considered and it was clear that admission to the scheme was discretionary so the employer was not obliged to include the complainant.

The investigation did not find maladministration resulting in financial loss and so the complaint was not upheld.