15. Three of the complainants say that their intention was "to seek my position on the question of consumer protection that scheme members were asking, namely "whether a company can do or say whatever it likes when it wants to recruit, retain or retire employees and then do something different subsequently." To investigate and express a view on that would involve my straying well beyond the realm of disputes of fact and law and the administration of a pension scheme and I have not done so.

In seeking the Ombudsman's position the complainants were seeking his position on the law.  It is perfectly reasonable for the complainants to ask about the law as it applies to companies in general.

Although the Ombudsman says he has not addressed the law on this issue, he does in fact do so in [215]:

215. I have not gone as far as Dr Marks would wish in exploring whether his former employer has honoured the bargain he says was struck when he exchanged his skills for a prospective pension or with whether IBM has continued to compare favourably with other employers. This is because I see no legally enforceable promise in either context.

Here the Ombudsman says that he does not need to investigate the certainty of the bargain or the size of the gap between the "leading companies" aim and the pension delivered because irrespective of the gap and certainty and the reasons for nondelivery there was no possibility of legal redress for Dr Marks.

How is this different from saying"a company can[legally] do or say whatever it likes when it wants to recruit, retain or retire employees and then do something different subsequently"?