The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of its pension scheme. We cannot decide whether the complainant’s organisation is liable for pension costs. The apology for delay and occasional inappropriate use of language is a suitable remedy. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall Mr X, complaints the Council, as administrator of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS): Had a conflict of interest as administrator and largest single employer in the scheme Made decisions not based on policy Misrepresented facts Failed to engage and was not transparent Failed to follow its complaints procedure
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: further investigation would not lead to a different outcome we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X represents a charitable organisation which was an employer member of the LGPS.
The organisation decided to exit the scheme. Mr X says this was following discovery of possible and actual pension liabilities they were not aware of.
The Council used its discretion as administrator of the pension fund and decided to waive the cessation deficit calculated as £78,000. It offered an arrangement for Mr X’s organisation to pay £39,000 for ill health strain and actuarial costs over 5 years. Mr X says the Council took the £39,000 from the organisation.
I understand Mr X disputes the Council’s decision that his organisation is liable for the ill health strain and costs. He wants the money returned. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we do not make decisions about liability. Only the courts have the necessary expertise to decide liability.
In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council recognises there have been delays in responding to Mr X’s correspondence. It apologised for this. It also apologised for the emails from staff which have occasionally contained inappropriate use of language. I note the events complained of occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic during which local authorities were dealing with many other issues. I consider the apologies to be an appropriate remedy to Mr X’s concerns about delay.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot decide whether Mr X’s organisation is liable for the pension costs, therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. Also, the Council has apologised for delay and issues with correspondence with Officers which I consider is an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.
Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman