Comments by Malcolm Fletcher

[Jane Tordoff]

The HPA have been asked to put this document on the forum

[Tony Green]

Looking at these well presented comments it is hard to see that the trustees are following the guidance from the pension regulator in being independent and impartial and acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries in recommending HPS2 as the only option beyond PPS.
Eg from http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-trustees.aspx#s1542

'When you are acting as a trustee your duties are to the scheme. Regardless of any other position you may hold, your duty must not be to any group or individual that you are connected with, such as the employer or a trade union, or a particular group of members such as pensioner members. So, for example, the cash flow needs of the employer or negotiations between the employer and workforce representatives about pension benefits are separate issues and must not influence you while carrying out your trustee role.'

[PhilipAlexander]

Why do you think that the trustees agreed to become directors of the new corporate Trustee? They know that they could be held personally liable for the failure to make CH2M live up to their contractual promises if they stayed as individual trustees.

[Tony Green]

The recently circulated Q&A 2 from the HPS Trustees on July 19 I think throws a little bit more light on how things played out.


In Q&A 2.5 they tell us:


'HGL and CH2M HILL put forward proposals to the Trustee for the restructuring of the HPS benefits. A non-negotiable element of those company proposals was the reduction of future pension increases and revaluation to statutory levels.'


So if you take it that the trustees accepted this then they probably even had to negotiate hard to get the extra bits that have ended up in the HPS2 option and I can understand better how we got where we are. I would think even the Americans would have been pleasantly surprised when they found out how low the statutory increase is in this country (bear in mind they assume around 3% in their accounts). The trustees then even went along with the idea last year to impose it as a fait accompli without any consultation or information to pensioners whatsoever.


It reminds me of the Chinese claim to the South China sea which according to them is an indisputable fact that is non negotiable.  Fortunately little Philippines got a sensible ruling from the Hague that the non negotiable claim is baseless in law. Lets hope for something similar. 

[Tim SMITH]

Malcolm Fletcher reports having received a letter dated 11 August 2016 from the Pensions Team which states:

"In the event that there were to be a successful legal challenge to the transfer going ahead, or to the terms of the transfer, the Trustee would not expect to proceed with the transfer on its current terms.

"With respect to your question about a possible investigation by the Pensions Ombudsman's office, I confirm the Trustees would of course give proper consideration to any determination of the PO."

[Ken Falls]

How condescending!! Read it as:

Dear Mr ex-Chairman,
If we are guilty of acting illegally then we will not proceed to take your benefits away.
If the PO investigates, we will consider it but may still proceed to take your benefits away.

It also still leaves the situation that if you do qualify your response to option A as per their statement then you will be placed in PPF should any legal challenge fail. (and they are doing their utmost to even prevent any legal challenge being heard in open court).

Also the response is ambiguous. Does it mean any legal challenge being successful before the deadline for submission? It says “would not expect to proceed” so if deadline is passed and they have proceeded to take your written consent then do they say sorry too late?

Are they saying that if either a legal challenge or a PO case is ongoing then they will not proceed with their intended process until the outcome of these is known? It would seem to be difficult to reverse the process if they are found to be acting illegally or the PO finds a complaint to be upheld.