In Reply to: Letter from MP posted by Peter Seaman on 28 December 2004 at 17:27:19:
: I also wrote to my MP Jim Sheridan, he wrote to David laverick the Pensions Ombudsman;
I Quote"
Dear Mr Laverick,
Some past and present employees of IBM UK have expressed concern to me about the determination of the complaints made to you by their colleagues, and about the process of arriving at the determination.
They point to a determination which says the promises made to them are "not legally enforceable" but does not mention the Equitable case or Lord Scott's view that "in exercising their distributive powers trustees and managers of pension funds should regard themselves as giving effect to a contract rather than exercising discretionary powers." They point to a determination that says the initial introduction of a connection between final salary and money purchase schemes may have been illegal(?? did he mean to say legal ??),but does not address their colleagues' argument that absense of the illegal connection would have sent the Statutory Surplus over the brink,and altered benefits.
They believe the extreme delay in arriving at a determination has prejudiced the outcome - the context of past events becomes less well remembered and information may become deleted.They believe that two of complaints were denied "due process" by the error of telling complainants, over a period of years,that their complaints were not being investigated when in fact they were.
I am tending to the view that the IBM affair deserves more scrutiny but I am reluctant to accept the IBM scheme member's view without more confirmation of facts. You are not obliged to help me, but you might do so in the spirit of judge Lightman's view that "Where a person is entrusted with the role of investigating maladministration by others, he must surely be ready to acknowledge maladministration on his own part in the course of his investigation..."
(a) Is it correct that when Sarah Jacobs,the Special Legal Investigator,resigned,her investigation of the IBM affair was reallocated to a new investigator,yourself?
(b) Isit correct that the two complainants were told that their complaints would not be investigated until two others had been determined but thay discovered more than two years later that their complaints had been investigated ?
(c) Do you still hold the view that you expressed to Sandra Gidley as "I was probably wrong to think I could complete the work personally rather than have someone else read themselves into the files and produce a draft for me"? (The IBM scheme members suggest that the determination demonstrates that it was definitely wrong to put such a complex legal case in the hands of an investigator with little experience of pensions law and inadequate spare time for proper investigation.)
Yours sincerely,
Jim Sheridan MP "