191. I cannot see that Mr Murphy would have been in any different position if that had happened than he now finds himself. I can understand that at the time he decided to invest in AVCs he may not have contemplated the amendments which have been made but he had no reason to believe that the status quo would for ever be maintained.

Another Straw Man - Mr Murphy did not claim that he believed the status quo would for ever be maintained.

The Ombudsman cannot see why the Mr Murphy in reality would see the AVC advantages differently from the Mr Murphy in the alternate world. Both Mr Murphys would have been considering investing AVC's that might subsequently be converted into C-Plan pension.  One Mr Murphy would be considering investing in a fund with more assets than the other.  The complainants believe that the Mr Murphy investing in the larger fund would be making a sounder investment, both in terms of security and in terms of prospects for increases on the eventual pension.

Also a scheme that has a chute to the M-Plan is perpetually different from one that has not.  

Why can the Ombudsman not see that there is a difference in the position of the two Mr Murphy's?