Pension Transfer Concerns

[TerryHoggart]

I worked at Halcrow and contributed to the Halcrow Pension Scheme from 21 October 1991 to 20 April 2000.  I have a number of concerns and questions about the proposed transfer to the new pension scheme.

I have tried to get some answers from both the Pensions Regulator and the Halcrow Pension Scheme but neither are not replying to my letters.  With the 5 August deadline drawing ever closer, I would be grateful if somebody on this forum might help with some of the questions I have.
 
(1)   Given it was deemed unlawful to transfer any pension out of the Halcrow Pension Scheme (HPS) into the New Pension Scheme (NPS) without express legal consent [as per the High Court judgement], how can it be legal to transfer any pension out of HPS into a holding pension scheme - that will immediately be declared bankrupt so pensions can then go into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) - without express legal consent?  I was told by the HPS team that this is the process that would be used in order to transfer pensions out of HPS into PPF without the need for Halcrow Group Ltd. (HGL) to go into administration.

(2)   Has anybody independently checked the HGL valuation report to ensure it includes Halcrow's Intellectual Property portfolio? I find it hard to believe that CH2M would fail to investigate all HGL's financial liabilities prior to purchase and it seems much more likely to me that they purchased HGL for its immense Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio.  IP - for example software, engineering designs, and the Halcrow brand - would be easy to undervalue (or even exclude?) and I am keen to know whether this has been fully included in the valuation used as the basis of the decision to wind up the Halcrow Pension Scheme.

(3)   I have read on this forum that some members of the HPS have spoken with the legal firm of Irwin Mitchell.  Can anybody shed any light on what is happening with this line of enquiry? For example: is there the chance of a group (or class) action against HGL?

(4)   When I wrote to the pensions regulator about these concerns I just received a fairly standard letter back the first time and nothing the second time; and the first letter did not at all address any of my concerns.  It would seem from the joint statement put out by the pensions regulator and the Halcrow Pension Trustees on this proposed transfer that they are more concerned with protecting jobs and the HGL as an operating company rather than protecting the rights of pensioners as should be their remit. Is there any other authority we can appeal to here given that these two bodies that are supposed to be looking after our interests don’t seem to be doing their job very well?

[Tim SMITH]

Hello, Terry

Re your questions 3 and 4, I suggest you first look at the Topic: Legal Proceedings by HPA:

http://www.halcrowpensioners.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=170.0

This deals with the legal action currently being undertaken by HPA with the support of Irwin Mitchell LLP.

I don't think there has so far been very much feedback on the legal position, probably because the committee is under pressure and concentrating on the court action in the tight timescale. As you will see, the current action is an appeal against a decision by the Pensions Regulator. I cannot comment on the merits of action against Halcrow: I trust the committee has a strategy for future action.

It is good to see a steady stream of new members, of whom I think you are one. No doubt the modest annual subscriptions are needed to fund the legal support - I imagine the funds are being depleted quite quickly.

[TerryHoggart]

Hi Tim,

Thanks a lot for taking the trouble to reply so quickly. 

I didn't actually know that the legal action had been initiated so that was very useful to know.  I would imagine that if the "fighting fund" gets depleted too quickly by the legal costs then many members in a similar position to my own would be happy to chip in with some additional contributions.

I do think there may be some mileage in my point 2: IP is notoriously difficult to value correctly and if C2HM's takeover was targeted at stripping out some of Halcrow's more valuable assets, including their IP - as may well be the case - then it would have been in their interest to undervalue Halcrow in this way to demonstrate that the overall value of the company was insufficient to fund the pension scheme fully.  That way they get all the benefits of Halcrow's assets without the disbenefits of having to pay for the pension scheme.

The way they initially tried to transfer us all to another, less beneficial pension scheme without our consent - and without even actually informing us - makes it hard for me not to think that there is some skulduggery taking place here.

[Jane Tordoff]

Can I suggest anyone reading this looks at the "News" category".  You will find the latest news on the legal case.