Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Slip-up leaves Equitable pensioners on their backs again

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 February 2008
IF THE latest misfortune to hit Equitable Life pensioners wasn't so tragic, it would be hysterically funny. Do you remember the old Charlie Chaplin gag where the clown keeps bumping into people and objects he hasn't seen? Or should that be Mr Bean?
Whichever, he starts looking where he is going and spots a banana skin lying in his path. Smiling with relief that he's missed the trap, he jumps high into the air to avoid it, only to disappear down a pothole he hasn't spotted on the other side.

Poor Equitable pensioners are just like this sad sap. For six years they have been buffeted and bruised in the financial equivalent of half a dozen rounds in the boxing ring.

They have had to watch their pensions cut by up to half, which is no fun when you thought you had provided adequately for your wife and yourself in retirement.

It's little wonder they rejoiced when the Prudential offered to take them under its wing.

Everything looked brighter after the deal was done at the beginning of the year. They thought their problems were over. Until that is, their first pension payments began dropping on their doorsteps last week, when they found themselves disappearing down more dark tunnels.

More than 2,000 very frail, elderly policyholders were shocked to see their pensions cut again by up to half. They knew there had to be a mistake, but couldn't get any sense out of anyone.

At first, the Pru was adamant there had been no muck-up, until it emerged that HM Revenue & Customs had issued new tax codes to all these people. Even then, the Revenue and the company agreed that, yes, new codes had been issued, but they were all correct.

However, after the Pru began examining the tax positions of some of the individuals caught up in the fiasco, panic bells began to ring.

It became clear that some had indeed been issued with the wrong coding notices. Worse still, those affected were octogenarians or in their late 70s, many in poor health.

They needed a shock like this as much as they needed a hole through the head. Cutting their pensions in half again left some of them without enough to live on.

To be fair, the Pru quickly picked up on the seriousness of the situation. The company has offered to examine in detail the position of any pensioner who believes he or she may have been wrongly taxed, and to refund them within days.

Meanwhile, true to form, HMRC refuses to accept there is any problem and maintains that the new tax codes are correct. A spokeswoman said: "The position is quite unclear and we are continuing our investigations. We believe that the codes we issued to these customers were correct. The Prudential doesn't agree. We are continuing to investigate in an attempt to get to the bottom of the matter."

What a pair, eh? Not so much Chaplin and Bean as Laurel and Hardy, and "Here's another fine mess you've gotten me into."

Deaf to criticism

BACK to banana skins. Pensions Secretary James Purnell found himself sliding around on a veritable grove full when the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on whether the Government had been justified in turning its back on the victims of company pension scheme collapses and rejecting the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report which found ministers culpable.

To an extent this is all history, because the Government caved in to the victims' demands before Christmas, although we are told that it is not being quite so speedy at coming up with the cash.

Just as well they did, because the Appeal Court agreed with Ombudsman Ann Abraham that the Government was guilty of administration.

However, it is less clear that the Government lost the second part of the case, which related to its right to reject any Ombudsman's findings it doesn't like.

All three sides are closely examining the judgment, and there may yet be an appeal to the House of Lords.

But the point about the Government's right to reject the Ombudsman's findings is important, because we are expecting a highly critical report into the events which brought down Equitable Life before the summer is out.

Given the Government's previous robust defence of its role as regulator to Equitable, we can expect that report to be rejected too.

Which begs the question: why have an independent ombudsman if the Government can simply bin any reports critical of its activities?

Break up the Rock

SO TAXPAYERS are now in hock up to £100bn thanks to Northern Rock.

Will someone please put it out of its misery. Nationalise it, split it up and be done with it.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 February 2008 10:16 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Prudential , Equitable Life
 
1

Mike ...,

Ayrshire 10/02/2008 09:24:02
" ... Just as well they did, because the Appeal Court agreed with Ombudsman Ann Abraham that the Government was guilty of administration."

Now that's a first!
2

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 10/02/2008 14:14:51
Broon must have had a reason to put Purnell back at the DWP where he failed before being a failure as Culture Secretary and then being re-appointed to the DWP for his deviousness, contempt for the rule of law and incompetence. His definition of culture is to help Cherie Bliar auction an autographed copy of the report into David Kelly's death for Labour Party funds. He then faked himself into a photograph to make it look as though he was doing his job instead of actually doing it.

By the time the EU and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have finished with the Goverment over Equitable Life, half the cabinet will be up for resignation: Broon, who was responsible for the FSA at the time of the Equitable Life collapse, Ruth Kelly, who was financial secretary to the Treasury at the time, Ed Balls, who took over financial services regulation and Alistair Darling, who is now left holding the baby.

3

Hugo of Garven,

10/02/2008 16:25:19
" . . the Government was guilty of administration."

At least they were not guilty of mal-administration.
4

Colston Hicks,

Cardiff 10/02/2008 19:11:12
The Govt.is playing with, and laughing at, the Pensions Action Group, the main campaign group run by Andrew Parr and Dr Ros Altmann.The Govt. knows that the two pieces of 'true' evidence given by the group are pure fiction.

1.If a company collapses the scheme automatically collapses too.This is absolute fiction.

2.The company guarantees the members' benefits. This is absolute fiction.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.