Contents

19 May 2000

Gentlemen and fellow pensioners

I attach a letter that I have sent today to my MP. I suggest that you consider doing something similar. The pensioners from Barclays Bank have taken a similar case to the pensions ombudsman and he has found in the favour of the pensioners although the bank are now appealing his decision. Barrie Morgans has been known to say that he hopes that the pensioners will not notice what is happening to their funds and that the actions of the company will slip into history. It is up to us not to let this happen. Please feel free to pass this on to any pensioners in your address book as we need to create a ground swell to try to get some action. We may need to enlist the help of a pensions lawyer or The Sunday Times.

Best regards

Tom Heneghan

1 June 2000

Gentlemen

Thank you for the many e.mails that you have sent me in support of the cause. Sounds as if I should raise a red flag. I have now received a reply from Virginia Bottomley and as usual she is being helpful and getting behind us.

In the light of the above it may be that the ombudsman will claim to have no jurisdiction over pension increases since IBM is registered in the US and the question of increases seems to be in the hands of "The Company." We cannot claim that the scheme is being maladministered in the UK since it has a surplus of £700million. The Pensions Trust however is registered in the UK so we will have to await his reply. In the meantime I have been advised that it is advantageous for as many pensioners as possible to make individual complaints rather than one letter with lots of signatures so I suggest that as many people as possible put pen to paper either to an MP or direct to the ombudsman.

I have had no reply from my letter to the manager of the Pensions Trust which is unusual so I suppose that it is the subject of much discussion before pen is put to paper.

I have seen the e.mail which was sent to the London Branch of the retirees club as a result of their meeting and I find it most unusual. It infers that the Scheme Actuary recommended that The Company take contribution holidays. I find this very duifficult to believe in the light of the recent history of poor pension increases and I intend to write to the Actuary for confirmation of this claim by the pensions manager.

I will keep you all posted on developments and please forward this to anyone that I have missed out.

Best regards Tom.

7 June 2000

Gentlemen and fellow pensioners

I have now received a reply from Kevin Waller which claims that the Scheme Actuary considers the M and C plans to be one fund but then goes on to give a number of facts which in my opinion adds to the case that this is questionable. He also claims that the Scheme Actuary advised the company that no further contributions were necessary.

My next steps are as follows;

1. Type up Kevin's reply as I do not have a scanner and send it to you.
2. Prepare a reply which I am working on now and will also copy to you
3. Write to the scheme actuary who is appointed to represent the members of the Pensions Trust to ask for his confirmation of the above particularly in the light of the poor and irregular increases which we have been receiving from a fund which is £700 million in surplus.
4. Write to the lawyers to the Pensions Trust who are also elected to protect our interests to ask for an explanation of how the two funds which are so different in all respects can be considered to be one fund in law under the 1995 Pensions Act.

Tom

15 June 2000

Gentlemen

Virginia has now sent me an OPAS leaflet, the Pensions Ombudsman's booklet and a letter that she has received from a Mr Marc Coe who is the New Complaints Co-ordinator at the Office of the Ombudsman.The outcome of all this is that one must first apply for advice and guidance from OPAS . An advisor will then attempt to resolve the complaint but if unable to do so will then assist the complainant in putting a case to the Ombudsman. In other words OPAS does the staff work.

In my case things have moved quickly thanks no doubt to Virginia Bottomley as I have alreaady received a letter from OPAS asking for more information and I will be sending them my correspondance with Kevin Waller.

The letter from OPAS is from a Mr Brian Besley who is a Technical Specialist and he makes the following points:

1. Increases of 5% or 100% of RPI only apply to pension benefits which have accrued in relation to post 5th April 1997 sevice.

2. Apart from increases to the part of your pension which represents the contracted out portion of State Earnings Related Pensions our entitlement to increases are as specified in the scheme rules.

3. Some schemes in recent years have given discretionary increases in excess of the minimum required but this is not an entitlement.

In addition he is requesting a copy of the scheme rules and a copy of any announcements regarding the transfer of monies from the "C" plan to the "M" plan of which there are no announcements as far as I know. Please let me know if you saw an announcement on this. I have also to complete a Form of Authority confirming that I have asked for advice and authorising OPAS to request information from The Trustee .This is a personal authority as it asks for D of B and National Insurance Number.

What I would like everyone who has not written to their MP already but is concerned about our pensions to write or send an E.mail detailing a complaint to OPAS and request a Form of Authority to save time.It is important that OPAS realises that there is a ground swell of discontent. The address is as follows:

OPAS Ltd
11 Belgrave Road
London SW1V 1RB
Telephone : 020 7233 8080
Fax: 020 7233 8016
E.mail: opas@iclwebkit.co.uk

If you prefer you can write to the Ombudsman who is Dr Julian Farrand and who is on the 6th Floor at the same address but I guess you will be referred back to OPAS to get the staff work done. The telephone number of the Ombudsman is 0171 834 9144 and the fax is 0171 821 0065.

Attached are the letters from Kevin Waller(31st May) and my reply to him.

Best regards

Tom

4 July 2000

Gentlemen

I am attaching my letter of complaint to both Kevin as a representative of the Trustee Directors and to Brian Besley who has been allocated to me as an adviser by OPAS. OPAS will only accept complaints by individuals so if you feel inclined to join me in complaining about the actions of the company and the trustees please feel free to use any of the material in these letters. If you would like any of the attachments mentioed in my letter to OPAS please let me know and I will try to help. Some of the material is hard copy so you would have to send me your snail mail address for things such as the Barry Morley resignation letter etc.

Best regards

Tom

attachments:

8 August 2000

In case you think that I have gone to sleep the truth is that I had a hernia op last week so e.mails were on the back burner. The latest is that today I received an acknowledgement from Brian Belsey, my advisor at OPAS. It only took him five weeks which I understand is good as the norm is seven weeks. My points are receiving attention. No reply from Kevin Waller at IBM however so I am about to rattle his cage again.

Here is an interesting bit of info however:

A good point that has been raised with me recently is that since the C plan has been closed since 1997 but the M plan is forever growing in terms of members then since the M Plan is being funded from the surplus in our Fund then the situation can only get worse for those of us who retired prior to 1997. The M plan members are protected by the Pensions Act 1995 in that their pension entitlement must be increaseed annually by 100% of RPI or 5% whichever is lower. Eventually the surplus in our fund will disappear as it is used to fund the M Plan liabilities. I thought that that might cheer you all up.

In addition I have just analysed a survey carried out by the magazine Occupational Pensions in December 1999. I extracted those companies who had over 1000 pensioners and out of 105 companies two did not give the necessary information but only IBM and ASDA had paid a smaller increase in 1999 to those who had retired before April 1997 than to those who had retired after that date. In ASDA's case the difference was only 7% so there was probably some technical reason as they did not differentiate in 1998. The 1995 Pensions Act which came into effect in April 1997 stipulates that companies must pay annual increases of 100% RPI or 5% whichever is lower and only IBM seem to be assuming that the legislation is not retrospective. I have asked OPAS to comment on that interpretation of the 1995 Act.

We now have a web site!! Alan Murphy and Nigel Foster are collaborating to set it up. It is in birth mode at the moment but can be accessed at http://homepages.enterprise.net/murphy/cplan/

In conclusion don't get a hernia if you can avoid it as it interferes with the golf.

Best regards
Tom

attachments:

24 August 2000

Gentlemen

I have had a long chat with a Mr John Spencer of OPAS today. He has been asked to coordinate the IBM cases. OPAS now have twelve cases regarding IBM including The 0riginal one from Mike Cawley and my own. As Mike has been involved much longer than the rest of us and if Mike agrees John Spencer will use Mike's material together with any additional material from the other cases and talk with the Ombudsman. As I understand his position, he is of the opinion that our case is similar to that of Barclays Bank retirees and another case Campbell vs Hicks of which I know nothing. John Spencer pointed out that the Ombudsman decreed in favour of the Barclays Pensioners , a decision which the Bank are now appealing and he made the point that our Trustee Directors have taken Council's opinion and think that they are within their legal rights. He will however approach the Ombudsman on four counts namely

1. Use of Fund surplus.
2. Equitable distribution of Fund Surplus
3. Proper discharge of Trustee Duties
4. Trustee Compliance with regulations on disclosures
5. John Spencer sees the last two items as a catch all for a number of items raised in our cases.

Best regards
Tom

Back to: Documents Contents