Pensions Ombudsman

• The CEO of the Pensions Regulator, Charles Counsell, has written to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee Stephen Timms in response to a letter following the Pensions Ombudsmans decision to uphold the complaints relating to the Norton Motorcycles pensions schemes.
• Charles Counsell outlined the internal review the Pensions Regulator is undertaking to identify if there are lessons to be learned in how it addresses conflicts of interest.
• He added that the Pensions Regulator does not have the resources to review every small scheme but does intend to do more work in the future looking at the governance issues around smaller pension schemes.
• The Chair previously wrote to the Pensions Regulator about the case in March.

Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP has written to the Chief Executive of the Pensions Regulator over the case of Norton Motorcycles Holdings Ltd and the three pension schemes invested in the company.

Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP has written to the Chief Executive of the Pensions Regulator over the case of Norton Motorcycles Holdings Ltd and the three pension schemes invested in the company.

• The AEA Technology (AEAT) pension scheme is a defined benefit final salary scheme set up with AEA Technology (previously the commercial arm of the UK AEA was floated on the stock exchange in September 1996.
• AEA Technology has become a Government owned company that April, although staff remained members of the UK AEA pension scheme until flotation (HC Deb 18 March 2015 c284WH).
• No such security was available under the AEA Technology scheme.

• That is a perfectly well established chain of thought.
• We might think, therefore, that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman would be able to rule on whether I am right in asserting that the Government Actuarys Department misled these pensioners and therefore engaged in an act of maladministration.
• (Ibid c167WH).

• The then Pensions Minister Richard Harrington did not accept that it had a responsibility to compensation scheme members beyond what would be provided through the Pension Protection Fund: The Government do not believe that we should compensate members of the AEA Technology pension scheme above what is being provided by the Pension Protection Fund.
• I would rather not be grey about it; that is the Governments position.
• We do not accept that the loss of the pensions was the Governments fault.

• It states that clearly.
• It provides three options and outlines the main factors that people should take into account when reaching their decision on which option to accept.
• (Ibidc176WH)

• A complaint regarding information provided to employees about their pension rights woud fall within the remit of the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) rather than the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
• Decisions of the PO could be challenged in the courts by judicial review or appeal (Ibid c178).
• The AEAT Pension Campaign was set up with the aim of achieving the reinstatement of pension rights as promised by the government at the time of privatisation.

• AEA Technology was allowed to enter a pre-pack administration and default on its pension liabilities, despite it being an apparently profitable company and actively recruiting.
• The transfer of service at the time of privatisation was said to be secure and the government does not intending to honour this promise.
• A thorough investigation into the pre-pack insolvency of AEA Technology, including the roles of various interested parties, including the pensions regulator, the PPF and the trustees.