In  Newsletter 44 we described a case where a High Court judge decided the Pensions Ombudsman had made a perverse determination.  Here we report on a determination about the IBM trust in 2006 which you may find perverse.  The difference is that there will be no High Court judgement in this case - the financial and practical difficulties prevent the determination being challenged in that way.  The IBM scheme member complained about the manner of the Trustee's consideration of 2006 proposed changes (but largely did not speculate on what the consequences of different consideration would have been).

Because the events in 2006 and the events in 2009 are related, with the events of 2009 being possible bad faith in the light of 2006 assurances, the determination will be of interest to those currently in litigation with IBM.  However, the substance of a complaint is fixed once the Ombudsman's Office has decided to accept it for investigation, and as a matter of policy the applicant is not allowed to add a further complaint later, so this complaint itself does not involve 2009.   Ombudsman determinations do not create legal precedents.  Taking all that in conjunction with the very shallow investigation the determination demonstrates, it is hard to imagine this determination altering the tribunal prospects.

What the determination does show is the negative effect of facts not coming to light, and the legal arguments stemming from those facts consequently not being pursued.  Because the default position is that IBM and the Trustee have done no wrong, there is a corresponding risk to upcoming litigation - that not enough of what happened in 2006 and 2009 will get considered.

The short story is that Tony King, the current Pensions Ombudsman, found no shortcomings in our Trustee's 2006 behaviour.  The few who will be interested, the fuller story is on these pages:

The Way the Ombudsman Process is Meant to Work.

The Determination - What it Tells Us and What it Does Not.

Legal Questions. 

IBM2006 - what may have happened.