Innogy Group Electricity Supply Pension Scheme · CAS-34074-V5Y4

CAS-34074-V5Y4

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr G

Scheme Innogy Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent The Group Trustees of the Innogy Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (Innogy)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

Mr G was a member of the defined benefits pension scheme of Innogy Group, which transferred to the RWE Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (ESPS). He was a member between 4 September 1989 and 31 March 2000. His retirement age under the Scheme was 63, which he reached in April 2019. He also transferred in benefits, which provided him with a service credit of three years and 115 days. He had total service of 13 years and 324 days, which was rounded up to 14 years.

“Please note that whilst every effort is made to ensure that figures in this statement are accurate, they are for information only. If any of the benefits are incorrectly shown, this does not mean that you are entitled to these benefits, as the statement is not binding on the Trustees. Your actual benefits will be

1 CAS-34074-V5Y4 worked out when they are due, based on the Scheme Rules and the laws in force at the time you take your benefits.”

On 5 October 2018, Mr G received a retirement benefits statement from Innogy that said he would receive an annual pension of £17,976.48. The retirement benefits statement included the following:

“The benefits shown on the statement are based on current information held on our records and the law in force at the date your pension benefits are worked out. If any of this information changes between now and your date of retirement, or if you have any benefits from any other pension provider, the figures on the enclosed statement may change.”

On 4 April 2019, Mr G received a letter from the new administrators of the Scheme, Willis Towers Watson (WTW). The letter said his annual pension would be £17,298.84.

Mr G complained to Innogy about the difference in the figures he was given, and, on 13 May 2020, it responded to him under stage one of the Scheme’s two-stage Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP). It said the pension payable to him as explained in WTW’s letter was his entitlement under the Scheme Rules. Innogy said the estimated pension stated on the retirement benefits statement was for information purposes only and Innogy, as the Scheme Trustees, has a legal obligation to pay the benefits to which he is entitled under the Scheme Rules.

Mr G was not happy with the response and asked for his complaint to be considered under stage two of the IDRP.

On 24 September 2020, Innogy wrote to Mr G under stage two of the IDRP. It said the reason for the difference between the October 2018 retirement benefits statement and the actual annual pension due was because of a discrepancy in the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) records held by HMRC. Having identified the discrepancy, it said it was obliged to correct the benefits to ensure Mr G received the benefits to which he was entitled.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

2 CAS-34074-V5Y4

Mr G did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr G provided his further comments which do not change the outcome. In summary, he said:-

• It is hard for him to prove he has suffered a financial loss.

• Innogy is obliged to honour benefit statements except to the extent that revisions are justified by any caveats to those statements.

• The caveats did not provide justification for reducing the figures.

• Innogy was in possession of the correct information at the time of determining his pension but did not use it.

• Innogy was not reliant on HMRC to correctly finalise the figures for his pension. It was in possession of the necessary information to do this itself.

• There has been a relevant misrepresentation and therefore a finding of negligent misstatement.

3 CAS-34074-V5Y4 • There have been numerous precedents where The Pensions Ombudsman has found erroneous statements on the part of Schemes to constitute negligent misstatement.

• Customers should be able to rely on information provided. The reliance that one is entitled to place on a benefits statement is linked to the decisions one is expected to take on the basis of it.

• The October 2018 statement contains all the necessary elements to constitute a contract.

• Non-financial injustice has been suffered, as nine days before his pension came into payment, he was sent a letter that said his pension would be around £1,270 per annum below what he was expecting. He has spent hundreds of hours in trying to resolve the matter.

Ombudsman’s decision

4 CAS-34074-V5Y4

Mr G said he has suffered non-financial injustice, due to the short time between receiving the final, correct figures, and his retirement date. He said that he has spent a significant amount of time trying to resolve the issue.

I accept Mr G may have been distressed at learning he was to receive a lower pension than he initially expected, however, I am not persuaded this warrants an award in this regard. Innogy has explained the reasons for the discrepancy, it also responded to Mr G’s requests for his complaint to be investigated within reasonable timeframes. While Mr G may have spent time in pursuing the complaint, it would not be appropriate to direct an award against Innogy for this, as there were no unreasonable delays on its part.

I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 8 September 2022

5