|
This Volume at a Glance : • Pension News – TPR Targets for 2016; • PRF – Disabled FSV-PJ – Warren the Procrastinator – at it again; • Disabled FSV-PJ – Delivery of a PRF – Attempted Humiliation by Ambush? |
| Pension News – TPR Targets for 2016 |
|
The following is the substance of an interview given by Ms. Lesley Titcomb, Chief Executive, The Pensions Regulator on the 8th January 2016 in which she looks at the key challenges facing the pensions industry and TPR. Whilst this can be considered by most rather ‘dry’ reading it is imperative that all those receiving Fire Service pensions simply must continue to monitor the health of their all essential Defined Benefit(DB) pension because trust no longer exists in FS Pension Scheme managers, or so called ‘experts’ or 'practitioners'. It should not be forgotten that Ms.Titcomb and her department are working for us as public tax paid civil servants to protect and police our pensions which makes rather a refreshing change and we must ensure they get our sympathetic support. At one early point the Bugler asked who was looking after the rights and interests of pensioners in particular disabled FSVs? Now we know – the new Pensions Regulator and the new Pensions Ombudsman. It was encouraging to note the prompt action which Ms.Titcomb took to instigate an investigation into the formal Complaint she received from FSV-RRB and the criminally fraudulent misbehaviour of his Pension Scheme manager Warren but of course on the conclusion and the expected firm corrective actions she will take she and TPR can expect to be judged by disabled Fire Service Veterans, particularly in Lancashire.
“This year will be another fascinating 12 months for the pensions industry as it adapts to the impact of unprecedented change and prepares for the challenges ahead. Freedom and choice, automatic enrolment, potential tax relief changes and the need for higher standards of trusteeship all present challenges. Automatic enrolment Our first priority, as it was in 2015, will be to maintain the successful roll out of automatic enrolment, but I am realistic that the next 12 months will bring a somewhat different challenge in the shape of the hundreds of thousands of small and micro employers yet to meet their duties. Further reading • Another year over, a new one just begun • A scathing review of a year in pension politics • Is it time to stop the clocks on the weakest covenants? • A year of change: 2015 continued the pensions revolution Between January and March, nearly 100,000 employers will need to enrol employees into a pension. We expect that the vast majority will meet with their duties on or ahead of time but we have been clear that we do expect to use our statutory powers more in the months to come. Some employers will need an additional nudge of enforcement action in 2016 and beyond from us to get them over the line, and I urge those employers to use the updated step-by-step information on our website to plan early and understand their duties. 21st Century Trustee. Last year we launched an open debate about what a 21st Century trustee(FS-managers) should look like, and we are keen for that debate to continue throughout 2016. We are analysing the research we have gathered through in-depth discussions with trustees and by observing board meetings. Later this month we will be revealing some updates to our popular trustee toolkit which remains a vital part of our trustee education programme. However, it is becoming very clear that as a regulator we are going to have to be more targeted in how we provide trustee education – by segmenting the trustee population, for example. We will be issuing help in the next few months on trustee training and on trustee board dynamics, and specifically on the role of the chair. We intend to share what we consider to be good practice and produce tools and guides that help trustees become more effective. As part of this, we will consider options that are achievable using our existing powers within current legislation, but where necessary we will also flag where changes would require the consideration of parliament. Next steps for DB In defined benefit (DB), we ended 2015 by publishing new guidance on integrating risk management to help scheme trustees(FS-managers) assess, prioritise and manage the employer covenant, investment and funding risks. The guidance is designed to help trustees(FS-managers) follow the principles of the DB Code. We are pleased with how trustees(FS-managers) have implemented the code and the regulatory strategy but to further evaluate its effectiveness, and to understand the impact of our new objective to minimise adverse impact on an employer's sustainable growth, we will be spending the first part of 2016 asking what effect they have had on scheme funding negotiations. More widely we will be considering what more we can do to help schemes in particular circumstances apply the code and ensure good long-term outcomes. We will also be working to understand in more detail the challenges faced by the schemes we have identified as stressed(The Fire Service one hopes?Ed.), looking at the different types of schemes that are in difficulties and the types of employers that sponsor them. Overall, we are committed to exploring credible new ideas with the DB pensions industry, and to working with sponsors and trustees to secure sustainable schemes that deliver good member outcomes over the decades to come. DC Code and a new approach(Non-Fire Service) The consultation period for our revised Defined Contribution (DC) Code of Practice, which will come into force in July, concludes at the end of this month and I would urge those who have yet to comment on the code to do so. The revised code highlights a bold new approach. Not only is it shorter and clearer, leaving no room for uncertainty, but it also sets out all the standards of conduct and practice we expect of trustees in one place. The use of the words ‘we expect' is deliberate as we do expect certain behaviours and activities from trustees(FS-managers to mitigate the risks to their members, and we want to be clear about that. I'm confident that this approach will be welcomed by our regulated community, which last year sent us a simple message: "Tell us clearly what you expect us to do. Be bold. Speak with authority." We know we can effect change and raise standards in the UK pension industry by speaking out and setting expectations. And this is what we will do in 2016.". ©Copyright ‘Professional Pensions’ acknowledged with thanks – TMB. |
| Disabled FSV-PJ – Warren the PRF Procrastinator |
|
Following disabled FSV-RRB’s success with the final release of his PRF from the LFRS in conjunction with Mr. N. Malik at the ICO, which Readers may recall had necessitated the attendance at LFRS SHQ of three Information Commisioner’s staff specifically to deal with non-compliance with the Data Protection Act in the matter of PRFs, other disabled FSVs then decided to climb through the breach into the LFRS castle following suit, by sending for a copy of their PRF’s just to see what litigiously beneficial truth they might discover in this cesspit of deceit. One of these was disabled FSV-PJ and if ever there was a seminal cases of miscarriages(note the plural) of Justice perpetrated by Warren and his coterie then FSV-PJ is the classical example as we shall see with time as the full truth is revealed. FSV-PJ sent for his PRF subject data under the DPA on the 18th September 2015, duly paying his Statutory £10:00,and sending an endorsed copy from his Passport for identification purposes using Recorded Delivery to the LFRS which included a copy to the Chairman of the Fire Authority CC F.DeMofetta so that he cannot later claim ignorance of what goes on in his name. FSV-PJ told them-because he had done the Morning Bugler course- that they had 40 working days to deliver his subject data under the DPAct even giving them a final date when it was due. All documents were copied to Mr.N.Malik of the ICO for information who continues to monitor the LFRS performance in respect of all applicable legislation. Of course nothing happened, neither an acknowledgement nor a receipt, even though on the 2nd October 2015 the £10 cheque was cashed by the LFRS. Informed speculation tells us that this request for the release of a copy PRF of FSV-PJ’s ended up on Warren’s desk passed there by Hutchinson(who later denied all knowledge) where it remained until the 4th of January 2016 over 3.5 months or more. As we know this clerk is an appalling ‘administrator’, aside from anything else, but this was yet more deliberate procrastination by Warren who knows full well what the implications of this particular release are for him professionally and the LFRS if the full truth is exposed to Public scrutiny and ambulance chasing lawyers, to say nothing of the continuing involvement and interest of Pension monitoring/policing Regulators. Warren and Hutchinson should be aware that FSV-PJ was, and is, an avid and detailed administrator of his own personal career records and Warren would be forensically wise to resist any temptation to ‘censor’ or ‘amend’ this PRF but as we well know Warren and his, by now, de facto deputy Pension Scheme manager Hutchinson are rarely clever and are a law unto themselves, for the moment. It is to be noted for keen followers of the Toads at Toad Hall that Hutchinson is now the Human Resources Manager. The same Hutchinson who is deeply involved in the fraudulent deception involving FSV-RRB case file which has resulted in the lodging of a formal Complaint with The Pensions Regulator; the Serious Fraud Office; others; and the Fire Authority. The Pensions Regulator immediately commenced an formal investigation into all these irregularities and criminality at the LFRS. Hutchinson’s promotion from Office Manager would normally bring its benefits but in this case being elevated towards ‘Barbarian’ Hamilton’s vacancy carries interesting stings in the tail and perhaps Hutchinson’s elevation finally confirms who actually supplied the impetus and information necessary to carry out the assassination and termination of Hamilton and Gardiners ‘careers’ at the LFRS? The first ‘sting’ Hutchinson will find is perpetually providing a defensive/sacrificial screen for Warren’s nefarious activities. A Warren who will regularly shove her out the front to take the flak and blame, a prime example of which occurred over the delivery of FSV-PJ PRF as we shall see... |
Warren of course nevertheless remains the Lancashire Firefighters Pension Scheme manager but he will without compunction dispense with Hutchinson, his temporary responsibility sharing deputy pension scheme manager, if she gets over ambitious with her yellow eye on his job, and if it ensures his own professional survival. Both of these characters will clearly not hesitate to manipulate and sacrifice those around them as they have demonstrated with Hamilton and Gardiner. This is an unholy back stabbing alliance and those, both innocent and decent working around them, will need to have a care for their own jobs. The second ‘sting’ is that Hutchinson will not now have the slightest excuse, as she did regularly in the past to wash her hands of responsibility in the back office, and thus she will have neither excuse nor reason for avoiding answering the unsavoury questions when the time comes, if it has not already arrived, in the form of the Pensions Regulator and the Information Commissioner The third ‘sting’ for Hutchinson is that this advancement temporary or otherwise brings her under the envelope of acquiescing silence to crimes and criminality which she has witnessed and which is no defence in criminal law, and in which she was not only deeply involved but was a willing party to, as we have seen in the example of the FSV-RRB case and thus this ‘promotion’ removes from her the ultimate opportunity to turn ‘Queens Evidence’ in the future because simply no one will believe the line that she ‘was only doing her duty’. Hutchinson should know by now, unless she is completely insensitive, that ultimately her personal freedom may well be at stake and one hopes that she knows it. Everything comes with a final price. This will all of course end with blood on the floor as such unholy alliances inevitably do but it will be interesting for uninvolved objective observers to see who strikes the first blow and to whose back? No one could really invent a scenario like this in the 21st Century but that is the ageless price that corruption brings with it. Hutchinson willingly took the advancement, temporary or not, and the money, now she must deliver to her ruthless masters. It is a distinctly unenviable position to place one’s self in but then it seems at the LFRS everyone has their rather cheap price where professional integrity and honesty is concerned… Presumably Hutchinson will also by now be aware that disabled FSV-PJ has preferred yet another formal Complaint to Mr. Malik at the ICO and as a consequence a new additional case file has been opened on the saga of the LFRS , PRFs, and the Information Commissioner. Sooner or later surely a prosecution by the Information Commissioner must follow? In the last few weeks it seems that once more the LFRS/LCC have received a Red Card from the ICO lending wings to Hutchinson’s feet who then proposed with remarkable alacrity to deliver up disabled FSV-PJ PRF last week into the hands of the delegated and authorised Bugler, a PRF copy application for which she professed to know entirely nothing? But as we have repeatedly seen, and will see again and again, the LFRS are simply poor losers and one wonders how they will feel when one day soon they will find themselves arrested for all this rampant criminality, because it simply cannot be allowed to continue, blighting the good names of all those who have the great misfortune to work under this iniquitous gang at the LFRS… Now for a raw example of this criminality which not only directly contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 but contravenes its spirit and in so doing treats with absolute contempt all those, particularly at the ICO, who have fought so valiantly to ensure LFRS compliance with the law and for the release of these PRFs. The LFRS games go on…and no lessons have been learnt, but let us see who gets the actual vacancies though there is an embargo on filling vacancies and to just watch how this will all pan out will be fun. |
| Delivery of a PRF – Attempted Humiliation by Ambush? |
Readers will recall that when FSV-RRB went to LFRS SHQ to collect his PRF he was accompanied by the Bugler and another witness. Warren came down from his office identified disabled FSV-RRB by name, no 'identity checks' were carried out, and he simply handed over his copy of the PRF with 2 receipts both of which were signed by FSV-RRB and one was handed back. It took as long to do as it has taken to type this scenario. However when the Bugler, who was authorised by disabled FSV-PJ to collect his PRF(both of whom had been in acknowleged contact with Hutchinson), who then went by appointment to LFRS SHQ for PRF collection it was an entirely different matter. It was time for more 'games’. Least there be doubt about any of this scenario let the emails as usual speak the truth of the matter and expose the usual mendacity by Hutchinson, an accomplished deceiver as we have seen on the record with FSV-RRB's PRF, when later the Bugler, by appointment, actually visited LFRS SHQ to acquire FSV-PJ's PRF. Go Here. |
The LFRS and Hutchinson in particular could not get their own ambush right if they tried. Hutchinson had a sudden attack of spiteful cleveritis over the simple delivery of a PRF to its legally entitled recipient disabled FSV-PJ. Perhaps she thinks that as the Human Resources Manager(which she erroneously claims to have been since 2001) that this willful largesse is an entitlement of her position? Certainly historical deceit, mendacity, and duplicity are. The illegal Taxpayers’ pay offs in bribery to avoid prosecution certainly pertains at the LFRS as we have seen in the case of the non-prosecutions of Hamilton for a 'race hate' crime and Gardiner for common fraud. It would seem that Hutchinson is professionally well practiced and accomplished in these darker arts though as will be seen lacks personal conviction when challenged about her veracity. Unfortunately being so clever and spiteful generally requires one to be sure what they are about before setting an ambush and in particular to avoid embarrassingly falling in your own trap. The first rule is… that the truth will always out… And so at the appointed hour the Bugler presented himself at the LFRS SHQ reception and asked for Hutchinson who responded almost immediately. No courtesies were extended. Apparently ‘meetings’ with visitors are now held at SHQ in the small bar/recreation room and it was to this already occupied venue that we both proceeded. We stood whilst the Bugler was asked to identify himself which he did by proffering his defaced(‘Retired’) LCFB warrant card with his photograph on it. This was summarily dismissed. Next the Bugler offered a choice of two Passports; a US Immigration ‘Green Card’; Driving licences of the UK, States of Oklahoma, and Georgia; and a Federal Aviation Administration Pilot’s Licence and invited Hutchinson to choose. Apparently the Bugler had to choose and a passport was passed over and then handed back. Next the Bugler proposed producing his dental records but Hutchinson rejected that notion and then required a utility bill which was produced in the form of the annual ‘Poll Tax’ statement which was deemed to satisfy. Next Hutchinson requested a copy of the ‘authorisation’ to collect the PRF for disabled FSV-PJ and when the Bugler pointed out to her that she had already received and acknowledged receipt of this Hutchinson denied that she had and then promptly marched off. She returned a short time later waving a piece of paper, which she did not pass over for scrutiny, stating that there was no such authorisation stated on this copy of that email.That was a falsehood. Not having been invited to examine it one could hardly tell what this crumpled piece of paper was other than perhaps destined for the toilet. But what was certain was that at no point on the proper email copy was there any reference to a Hutchinson requirement that this ‘authorisation’ was to be personally signed by disabled FSV-PJ. It is always indubitably better to get the mendacious ‘denial’ right the first time around. Because it was obvious that a deliberate impasse had been reached under Hutchinson’s flexible rules of engagement the Bugler enquired whether was it her decision not to release disabled FSV-PJ PRF to him? When Hutchinson affirmed this, the Bugler then left the LFRS SHQ. A very short time later the Bugler re-sent the original detailed email(copied to disabled FSV-PJ) which contained the appointment; the ‘authorisation’; and Hutchinson’s acknowledgement; back to both parties once more asking Hutchinson for the required acknowledgement which never materialised this time. Go Here. The Reader will note that throughout these email exchanges there was also no reference to any requirement in law or fact that any ‘authorisation’ would require a personal signature by disabled FSV-PJ nor indeed was any of this invented ‘procedure’ required in the case of disabled FSV-RRB as readers will recall. Once more these emails confirm premeditated mendacity on Hutchinson's part which raises the question how, in the future, can anyone,once more, trust her professional integrity with such blatant misbehaviour in public office as this? At this time also, disabled FSV-PJ contacted the Bugler and stated that he had contacted the LFRS who were unable to find Hutchinson and as a consequence he had spoken with an office junior in Hutchinson’s office who reassured him that if the Bugler returned to SHQ he could, without further delay, collect the denied PRF. It is noteworthy, on reflection, that at no point did Hutchinson appear with a PRF in her possession which is all rather curious because a PRF of FSV-PJ career including medical records and legal papers of his case against the LFRS could expected to be at least 50mm thick? Where was it ? Did a contrived absent Warren have it in his possession or locked (lost) away somewhere? Perhaps he might have to break down Harold's door again? The Bugler was aware the Warren was conveniently absent in Manchester on this day. Though simply at home in Stockport having an ‘early shower’ was more accurate and he was thus using Hutchinson, as the Bugler predicted, as his first line of sacrificial defence. An uncomfortable position Hutchinson is going to regularly have to get used to and which will ultimately cost her her job, |
her pension, and should she continue down this mendacious path her personal freedom. It is a dangerous game to play which always comes with a price tag… Once more the Bugler went to SHQ and listened at reception whilst the receptionist spoke directly with Hutchinson who clearly by now was no longer 'missing'. The Bugler waited…
After passing and re-passing the Bugler three times in the public hallway Mattinson finally summoned up the courage to introduce himself to which the Bugler replied that he knew who he was. Mattinson stated that he knew why the Bugler was there(having obviously by now responded to Hutchinson’s pleas for help and having been briefed by her and in Warren’s carefully contrived absence) and that he had decided that unless the ‘authorisation’ was signed by disabled FSV-PJ he was not prepared to release it to me. Mattinson seemed bemused when the Bugler put to him that in ‘exercising the privileges of former rank’ he required a meeting with the duty Principal Officer. Mattinson responded that he was in charge which was of course simply fatuous nonsense but perhaps in the eventuality and reality he actually might have been? The Bugler next posed a question to Mattinson asking was he refusing his request? Adding that he was indeed fortunate that the Bugler was actually framing such a request through him because usually the Bugler did not normally deal with civilian clerks except to issue instructions to them, at which point Mattinson decided to go and seek the duty PO.
The Bugler, the ACO, and his Father, former CFO Russel with whom the Bugler had served, had met amicably earlier in the week at a Service funeral. After listening to Mattinson’s party line spoken by ACO Russel it was clear that the ACO had decided that he could not release disabled FSV-PJ PRF to the Bugler either. This was regrettable because it seems at this Animal Farm the pigs now hold sway… It was also clear at an early point that ACO Russel was completely ignorant of all the circumstances surrounding the issue of the release of PRFs and the deep involvement of the Information Commissioner who has required their release under threat of prosecution should the LFRS continue to fail in its compliance with the DPAct. It was of particular interest to note that the ACO was completely unaware of the in-depth involvement of the Information Commissioner or that he had sent a 3 person deputation to SHQ to physically inspect the PRF filing system to ensure that it was compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and thus, when determined, the LFRS were required to release these PRFs on demand by legitimate applicants. Surprisingly in these straightened financial time the ACO was unaware that the Information Commissioner could fine the LFRS up to £0.5mil for non-compliance and indeed levy individual fines for non-compliance and obstruction to his instructions on the obstructive individual members of the LFRS staff. This exercise simply confirms what the Bugler has stated for years. Namely how the secretive Warren operates in a self protective bubble of his own making in which he wilfully controls who does, and who does not know, when he and his staff under his instruction are acting in direct contraventions of the law which will in time lead to the downfall of those who knew, and equally the downfall of those who had a duty to know, and yet failed to exercise that duty in public office, whether employee, or politician,civilian, or uniformed. Later that day the LFRS and Huthchinson received faxed instructions(a transmission procedure recognised by the UK Courts) from disabled FSV-PJ instructing that his PRF be delivered up to the Bugler’s address by messenger or by First Class post. As of this date no delivery has yet been received. One wonders why if Hutchinson stated at the outset of this charade that the PRF was ready for collection. The mystery deepens… One departing thought. The LFRS website organogram shows the Head of Human Resources as 'Vacant'. One presumes the LFRs mean that the appointment is vacant and that this comment is no any reflection on Ms. Hutchinson acting performance or her career future. It must be very worrying…? If it is the case that the HR appointment is vacant we must surely all wait for the public announcement of the vacancy in the local press followed by a short list and appointment panel leading to the publishing of the biography of the appointed one, must we not? Let us hope the slither under the back door have been abandoned as a ruse… Otherwise we might well ask …Plus ca change? |
