• Bugler Comments ~ Heads in the Sand;

• TPO ~ Mr. I. McInnes ~ A Mexican Opinion?

Dear Reader,

The Bugler has reached a point where a routine update on ‘Current Affairs’ on a variety of subjects is required which includes reproducing the redacted copies of relevant-to-subject correspondence so that those who follow the disastrous state of pensions in the UK in general, of which the Fire Service Pensions Schemes in particular are yet another leading exemplar of how not to do it.

We continue to irresistibly march forward exposing those whose actions require exposing, naming names, and shaming the pension scammers, erstwhile the so called experts, who ‘administer’ our pensions without the foggiest notion, or professional qualification, to know what they are doing.

In the case of the Fire Service Pensions, individual disabled FSVs continue to lead the way to the point at which the legitimacy of their grievance becomes publicly over whelming.

A grievance which is that they are, and have been paid the wrong disability Injury pensions, for decades until the inexorable point is reached at embarrassed governmental level whereby the defrauded are recognised and their honest monies including the loss of amenity interest at commercial rates, is paid back to them.

Having been side tracked by the usual lurid criminal lunacy of yet one more of the so called Elected Councillors of Lancashire, locally referred to as ‘Messiah’ Britcliffe, who remains in the company of his ‘Fuhrer’, yet another Lancashire ‘Pot Hole’ Saviour their Leader CC Driver  neither of whom, surprise surprise, have the slightest decency of intention to either standing down or resigning.

Another stark failure of political decency which makes the Lancashire political epithet  ‘brass necked’ an addition to ubiquitous worldwide lexicon applied to all politicians.

How can Lancashire teachers be expected to set and teach examples of decency and good social behaviour to children when the very people who run their schools behave in such an appalling unapologetic corrupt manner?

How can they have such depths of unplumbed gall?

In returning to the serious study and updating of various topics concerning pensions activities which continue in Justice denied to afflict disabled FSVs not only in Lancashire but UK wide the loyal Reader will have noticed that this review and updating has commenced with an uninspiring overview of the UK pension ‘industry’ which contains sections of maladministered  Fire Service Pensions Schemes.

Next the Bugler must follow up on live cases which have been presented to TPR and TPO by their respective Complainants.

In the process bringing the spotlight to yet more of these  individual pension ‘experts’ tasked with their Statutory duties which is to ensure impartiality that not only are pension schemes being lawfully managed but that when pension Complainants suffer maladministration, malfeasance, and the by now expected criminality and Pension Complaints are lodged with TPO that they are promptly and fairly dealt with.

However, as we have now come to expect in these poorly politically controlled departments which seem to be staffed with ‘Whitehall Warriors’ who have never seen a frontline in their entire clerkish life and to whom impartiality is a natural anathema and who believe, and who would dispute it, that they are beyond the law, accountability, or any form of discipline  setting a new high in Animal Farm which even the author cannot have foreseen.

 So in no particular order the subject headlines are indicated above which the Bugler will deal with in the days and weeks ahead in the ‘Current Affairs Section’ .

But in the meantime with apologies to Mr. Ian McInnes of Mexico for delays on the Bugler’s part we reproduce in full his commentary of his ‘experience’ with TPO which comes as not the slightest surprise to those of us tasked with the daily dealing with these shady characters but which nevertheless the Taxpayers(Us) have as a burden to our pockets.

Surely even they know that burying their heads in the sand simply exposes their more vulnerable parts as everyone well knows…

• TPO ~ Disabled FSV ~ FG An English Opinion on the Continuum ;

• TPO ~ Disabled FSV ~ RT An English LFB/Marine’s Opinion;

• TPO ~ Director of Casework F.Nicol ~ Fiddling the Books ~ A Statistician’s Opinion confirmed by the ‘disappearance’ of disabled FSV-RRB Pension& Service Complaints at TPO.

• FOIA – the Judiciary, HHJ Butler(Rtd);The Bugler; and the Zombie Children, gone but far from forgotten;

• Skin Cancer/Chest Infections/Adrenaline Hearing damage ~ Firefighters health present and past?

To all members of the Commons Select Committee – Work and Pensions

I include an entry link to PDF documents and web pages on my comprehensive website. In case you cannot access this, I attach PDF documents. I also append an email  for your immediate attention.

I put before you the clearest evidence of TPO’s refusal to investigate (never mind determine) a case involving criminal misconduct by Scottish Widows. Instead, after a year of delay and prevarication (for which no credible explanation was given), I am required to either accept a “solution” that would allow Scottish Widows to escape justice, or else withdraw my case. In all the circumstances, this connotes TPO protection of and collusion with Scottish Widows.

I am sure you are aware that the Pension Schemes Act 1993/2017 (Sections 145(4C) and 146) requires TPO to investigate and determine cases it has accepted, and that the latter function must be carried out by the PO or his/her Deputy.

Making deals with the pension provider or arbitration of any kind are not legitimate functions of TPO.

It should be clear that to allow this of an organisation charged with making legally-binding determinations is highly conducive to corruption; this is one reason why the role of arbitration (or “finding solutions”) must be confined to TPAS.

So by having the adjudicator force a “pragmatic solution” on the complainant (especially after having done nothing to investigate the case), TPO shows utter contempt for the above Act.

Moreover, TPO is knowingly covering up criminal policies from a major pension provider. Its behavior thus not only grossly contravenes pension law, but also involves (at the very least) a conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. And one must question the motives and circumstances in which such brazen protection of a miscreant (but deeply-entrenched) pension provider could take place.

That this has indeed taken place is evinced in my last communication from TPO, dated 31/10/2017 (appended). You will note that the adjudicator claimed that his role allows him to “find solutions to problems”. This is the second of two attempts by the adjudicator to push me into a reprehensible and unlawful “deal” with Scottish Widows to access my personal pension funds, the first being in his email of 03/10/2017 (also copied to Fiona Nicol, the Casework Director). In my rejection of 04/10/2017, I insisted on a resolution based on justice and the rule of law. Although lack of access to my funds is causing me considerable financial difficulties, my position remains clear: I will not involve myself in criminal activity, which I believe has been perpetrated by both Scottish Widows and TPO.

In his email, the adjudicator suggested that matters had become “entrenched”; but as you can see from the correspondence in the chronology of my dealings with TPO, he has not lifted a finger to investigate my case, or otherwise done anything that might culpate SW. For example, I suggested on two occasions that sending the Questions for SW I prepared (if necessary under Section 150(4) of the Pension Schemes Act) would be an easy way to determine whether SW’s draconian “verification” demands are indeed “required under UK legislation”. And although my case was assigned to the adjudicator in October 2016, he did not communicate at all until 15 May 2017; and this was only after I had found out his name, surmised his email address, and contacted him directly. Since then, he demonstrated considerable evasiveness, as can be seen from reviewing the correspondence.

The chronic stress and anxiety resulting from this and the preceding seven months of radio silence led me to attempt to get information on my case from TPO and urge an investigation. This resulted in more evasiveness and misinformation from TPO, culminating in an appalling Complaint Response from the Casework Director on 15/09/2017. The explanations that this gives for the year of inaction are frankly ludicrous, and I am in no doubt that it was a deliberate ploy to weaken my position. After being slapped down by Fiona Nicol for the cautious and measured expression of my concerns, I received the two emails from the adjudicator mentioned above (which in any normal law-abiding environment would be highly self-incriminating).

Since then, I been unable to obtain anything further from TPO. The last four emails I sent:

– my rejection of 04/10/2017 (see above), copied to the Casework Director and the PO

– a follow up email of 08/10/2017 sent to the PO

– an email of 01/11/2017 sent to the PO in response to the adjudicator’s email of 31/10/2017

– an email of 10/01/2018 sent to the Legal Director (who is apparently also a SW personal pension holder)

all remain unanswered.

I had hoped that the evident collusion with SW was confined to a rogue individual, but it is now clear that there is full complicity from the Pensions Ombudsman down. TPO has shown itself to be a tightly-knit and corrupt organisation that will just close ranks and protect its own when challenged; even when its actions are clearly unlawful. I believe that the PO and at least one other senior member of staff should be in prison. I hope that the information I provide will result in a major shakeup of TPO, with much greater scrutiny of it in the future than there has been to date. I also sent an email to The Pensions Regulator requesting an investigation into TPO activity, but was told that TPO does not fall under the auspices of TPR, being stewarded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

There must also be careful examination of the changes introduced by Mr Arter. Even a prima facie view of these should lead one to question whether they comply with the Pension Schemes Act. But further consideration in the light of my experiences indicates that the stated changes are just the tip of the iceberg, with insidious undercurrents; for one, there have clearly been machinations aimed at evading PO determinations that may be subjected to legal scrutiny. Clearly Mr Arter has been highly successful at promoting “informal resolutions”, and this must be to the serious detriment of the pension holder. I know that my case is not the only one in which TPO is evading its statutory duties of investigation and determination. Please read the section on my website analysing my concerns over the role of the PO, or view the attached document.

The core of my case against Scottish Widows is that it will not encash a personal pension unless extremely burdensome and illegitimate demands are met. These include the provision of several certified “verification” documents that SW asserts “are required under UK legislation”. This is demonstrably a false pretence. The only reason the UK government could require such documents would be under anti-money laundering regulations; however no verification whatever is required where there is an ongoing business relationship (as clearly exists between pension provider and pension holder). But even if verification were required, Scottish Widows’ requirements are grossly excessive in relation to those of the government. And the customer is further confounded by dreadful changing and erroneous documentation of the required documents and certification, making their fulfilment by the customer difficult, and rejection by SW easy.

As Scottish Widows could not possibly have genuinely believed their measures to be a legitimate implementation of government AML regulations, they can only be part of a fraudulent strategy to evade pension encashment. This is supported not only by investigation, but also their own statements and evasiveness on this issue. And there is no basis to refuse encashment on AML grounds when there is the most definitive proof of identity, as in my case (the HSBC Mexico bank account in my full name, to which they had paid a much more substantial sum in encashment of investment and mortgage plans about two years previously without any such “verification” requirements). Moreover, AML regulations do not differentiate pension encashment from other types of transaction (e.g. investment liquidation).

My case also includes numerous other instances of maladministration, and would be highly damaging to SW if brought to light. The certified documents that SW rejected became valid once SW realised I was making a complaint; however, as it was now clear that their requirements were unlawful, I considered it vital to pursue this matter in the interests of justice, and to prevent other pensioners suffering from SW’s abusive treatment. This position, whilst principled, has led to a protracted nightmare in dealing with TPO, as well as major financial worries. And it has unfortunately proved futile, as the abuses of the pensioner are allowed to continue unabated in the stinking morass of corruption that is TPO and the pensions industry (and I fear more besides).

This is a shameful situation, especially in a mature democracy with a supposedly low level of corruption . One could hardly have stronger evidence of the law being flouted by two organisations, resulting in misery for many people; yet it seems that there is no recourse to justice.

Both TPO and SW showed their guilt by ceasing to respond once I had evidence against them that they could not counter. As I mentioned, my approach to The Pensions Regulator was fruitless. I reported SW to Action Fraud, who did nothing, claiming that they did not have the necessary leads. I also contacted a solicitor that appeared to specialise in pension cases on behalf of the consumer, without the courtesy of a reply.

I can only hope that the honourable members of parliament will do a better job of dealing with this scandal. This clearly requires that certain people be brought to justice, and reorganisation and restructuring of TPO and its connections to prevent further abuses.

Yours sincerely, Ian McInnes.