What did the retiree buy?

It is not in doubt that the retiree, when employed, intended to get something in return for work and contributions.   It is not in doubt that IBM UK intended to provide something.  What was the something?   Is it determined solely by the communications over the years between IBM and the employee?  Or is it determined solely by the deeds of the trust set up to actually send money to the retiree?   Or is it the former, augmented in detail by the latter, and by the regulations?  This view, that the essential bargain is an employer/employee one but, since that will be described only informally and in outline, the various deeds and regulations can refine it, has been favoured in the courts.  That still leaves plenty of possibilities for sources that contradict or factors that are not described well anywhere. 

What Pension-In-Payment (PIP) policy was bought?

Does the answer to this follow from the general practice and communication of IBM policy - to be one of the best in all matters of compensation and benefits?  How much weight should be given to IBM management's answer to a question specifically about PIP practice?  Does saying that something is an "aim" prevent it being an obligation or make it an obligation conditional on circumstances permitting it?  Is the wording of the deeds helpful: "... shall be increased by such amount as the Trustee, with the consent of the Principal Employer, shall from time to time determine on the basis of advice from the Actuary ... ." or does that just say that affordability is a factor in whether the aim can be met, and the Actuary will be a good source of advice on affordability? 

What Pension-In-Payment (PIP) policy was realised?

The outcomes over the last 10-15 years are known.   The degree of proximity varies from time to time but the outcomes closely match a policy of eroding pension values by 30% of the RPI change, at irregular intervals averaging longer than a year.  These outcomes are much worse for the member than the PIP outcomes of comparable companies.   Can a policy be deduced?  If there was a policy, was it a trust policy or an IBM policy, given that the trust never did propose an amount that the company did not consent to (until 2001)?

If there is a gap in PIP policy, will a complaint about it be upheld?

The Ombudsman is part of the legal process.  His determination should reflect what higher courts would decide.   Because of the existence of the trust, and the way in which obligations to the retirees arose, it is unlikely that the courts would view this as a matter of contract law. 

This section is under construction.  To be continued.