Army Preserved Pension Fiasco
Events from Completion of Overseas Payment Mandate
This is the second of two pages that chronicle my attempts to obtain a Preserved Pension. It covers events from my completion of the OPM onwards. This part is directly relevant to my case against Equiniti Paymaster.
Both pages allow you to view all the relevant correspondence that I have received and sent. For letters and emails, this includes the full unedited textual content (but not necessarily details in headers and footers, such as addresses and salutations).
For faster navigation, these documents are presented as popup images. Click on thumbnail image and hold down the button to enlarge. In many cases, there is also a link to a PDF document of the correspondence.
The form on which details of overseas bank accounts must be supplied (OPM) is available here. After downloading, printing, and completing the OPM for Mexico, I sent it by registered post to the specified address at Veterans UK. Although the OPMs are on a government website and sent to Veterans UK, they are actually created and processed by Equiniti Paymaster's "overseas banking team". It is left as a challenge to the reader to figure out by what means this Fine Load of Bankers determined the requirements in this form. | |
This part of the OPM appears to be applicable to all countries. But the only field that requires any knowledge of banking is incorrect - the account holder name can be up to 35 (not 18) characters long (although of course, there is no point in specifying this). I was relieved to find that, at 17 characters, mine just fits. | |
The country-specific part of the OPM looks absurd - and so it is. It bears no relation whatever to what is required by the Mexican Banking System. Since 2004, this is a single unique 18-digit value known as a CLABE allocated to each bank account, which incorporates all the required details plus error checking. There are numerous sources of information on this; for example this article on Xoom, and this site giving examples for various countries. All references (including the Bank of Mexico) concur that the sole requirement is this 18-digit CLABE. None states that a separate 3-digit Bank Code must be specified (no such value is publicly known§). The Account Number is not used separately outside Mexico (it forms part of the CLABE); and it has a maximum length of 11 digits (not 34!). The Account Type is not only irrelevant, but erroneous (Mexican bank accounts are not classified in this way). So, 0/10 here. In dealing with this OPM as best I could, I supplied my CLABE in the Account Number field, plus additional details and an explanation below. This should have both enabled payment to be made to my bank account, and made clear that their form was in need of repair. But as you will see, this and several painstaking explanations I made subsequently were not good enough for Equiniti Paymaster, who continued to assert that their bank code was required for Mexico. And months later, not only have I still received no payment, but their OPM remains uncorrected, faithfully preserved for the benefit of others. | |
§Anyone with a bank account in Mexico will know that the unique CLABE assigned to the account is the only value required to make funds transfers to it. Like a credit card number, to end users the CLABE is a unitary "black box" value. I have had numerous transfers made to my HSBC account in Mexico for over ten years from at least three different sources in the UK, and had never heard of a Bank Code. Neither had bank staff when asked about it. So when completing this form, it seemed that this must be the 9-digit value that identifies the bank branch (i.e. that it was the equivalent of the Sort Code). To be as helpful as possible, I supplied mine underneath, together with my account number (although these are not used externally). Later investigation showed that the first 3 digits of the CLABE comprise a bank code that identifies the banking institution (in my case, 021 for HSBC); the next 3 digits identify the bank branch. Bearing in mind the total ignorance displayed by this form, and the fact that bank codes crop up all over the place, it is not reasonable to suppose that their 3-digit Bank Code has any basis in knowledge of the Mexican banking system. But even if this were so, they had no business to request it, for at least three reasons:
All this is to underline the fact that their requirement for a 3-digit bank code is invalid, and that this OPM would not enable any funds transfers to be made to Mexico. Equiniti Paymaster can have made no effort whatever to investigate the requirements, or to check this form. And I stand by the efforts I made to deal with it. |
Received general information from Equiniti Paymaster; it was now clear that this company would be handling payment of my pension. This is the covering letter, stating how and when the pension will be paid. I never requested that the lump sum be sent under separate cover. | |
The remaining two sheets deal with their purported Standards of Service. Bearing in mind my subsequent experiences of these, it makes rich reading. Of particular note are the risible statements under the heading Complaints Procedure. Although the Pensions Ombudsman is mentioned, their Complaints Procedure does not mention that a formal Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure must be completed before the Pensions Ombudsman will accept the case. Their two-stage Complaints Procedure is similar in nature to an IDRP; however, it would not serve this purpose:
Subsequent investigation showed that Equiniti Paymaster requires their Complaints Procedure to be completed before one can even start the IDRP. This appears to preclude any intervention by the Pensions Ombudsman Service, for the following reasons:
So Equiniti Paymaster clearly holds all the cards, and is effectively immune to any action by the Pensions Ombudsman. |
Sent reply to email received from Veterans UK yesterday, mentioning the cheque I had received. This was forwarded by Veterans UK to Equiniti Paymaster. |
Received two more useless UK cheques, both dated 2nd November 2015, but under separate cover. One was for the amount of the arrears, the other for the amount of the Terminal Grant. |
Having waited another two and a half weeks and again received neither payment nor response, it became clear that dealing with Equiniti Paymaster was a waste of time. The only other contacts I had for them were the two postal ones given in their Complaints Procedure (see here). I think my experiences with both the post and Equiniti Paymaster's responsiveness to date should explain why I did not consider sending them a complaint to be a reasonable course of action: this would mean writing a letter to their "Pensions Customer Services Team Leader", which (if their statements are to be taken at face value), they would simply acknowledge within 10 working days. I therefore reverted to Veterans UK, as they contract Equiniti Paymaster and should be in a position to put pressure on them. And I thought they should be made aware of the quality of service that this company renders on their behalf. The email I sent included a link to this webpage. |
Received another useless UK cheque from Equiniti Paymaster, dated 16th December 2015, in the amount of one month's pension. I checked the online OPM for Mexico, to see if Equiniti Paymaster had updated it. The same OPM that I had downloaded was preserved for the benefit of others. But to correct this form would be to acknowledge their failings, which is obviously something they are not prepared to do. |
Having waited for a week without hearing from either Veterans UK or Equiniti Paymaster, I sent this follow up to Veterans UK. |
Received yet another useless UK cheque from Equiniti Paymaster, for 16th January 2016. Maybe they think that sending these absolves them of their obligation to make payment to my bank account (the only option in my case) and thus they can avoid having to accept any responsibility for their negligence. |
Received a prompt and detailed reply from the Pensions Ombudsman Service. Unfortunately, this stated that before they can act, I have a legal obligation to pursue this at two levels with Equiniti Paymaster via a formal internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP). Attached were a Template Document showing how to make clear that the complaint was under the IDRP, and a Complaints Leaflet. | |
Not having been informed about any such procedure in any of the information I received from Equiniti Paymaster, I queried what was meant. I also expressed the difficulties I would have in following such a procedure, especially since this would apparently mean the use of post. |
Suspecting that the information I had from Equiniti Paymaster did not conform to the IDRP on at least two points, I sent this follow up to the Pensions Ombudsman Service. Attached were scans of the two pages describing Equiniti Paymaster's self-professed Standards of Service, that you may see here. |
Received a reply to the two above emails. Whilst this gave a little more information, it did not address the issues that I raised. They did attach the application form on which I could make a complaint once the IDRP was completed, that you may see here. I was advised to contact the Pensions Advisory Service. |
Contacted the Pensions Advisory Service via an online form. Whilst there was no way I could properly explain the situation within the supplied enquiry box, I gave a link to this website, and hoped that they would contact me by email. | |
Received a totally unexpected email from the original contact at Equiniti Paymaster, at last acknowledging what I had been telling them for months. I am not sure whether this was a result of goading by Veterans UK (from whom I had heard nothing for over five weeks), or possibly due to the Pensions Advisory Service. The "much going back and forth" that Equiniti Paymaster apparently found necessary to resolve this clear and simple situation is a matter for the reader's imagination. Regardless of what prompted this out-of-the-blue communication, I have no intention of letting things rest here. I feel that not only am I due a significant sum in compensation, but have a duty to expose this disgraceful conduct to prevent further issues of this kind. Given Equiniti Paymaster's complete unresponsiveness and the evident difficulties in the complaints procedure, I had long since given up on receiving any Army pension in the medium to long term (or at all). I had therefore been compelled to attempt to take a lump sum out of a small private pension, after having previously liquidated some investments here (my failure to do this is a much bigger story involving not just negligence and cavalier treatment, but criminal misconduct and collusion, that you may see here). |
Replied to simply confirm that I had not presented any of the cheques that they had sent. I refrained from making further comment, as it clearly would not be worthwhile here. |
Received a detailed reply from the Pensions Advisory Service. This included three PDF documents, none of which I had seen previously:
Given the timing, I wondered whether the Pensions Advisory Service had made representation to Equiniti Paymaster; yet the form above suggests that they would not have done this before I had completed and returned it. |
Replied to the Pensions Advisory Service. I recently found an Armed Forces Newsletter dated 2015 from Equiniti Paymaster (see last page) that gave the Armed Forces Pension Schemes - Dispute Resolution Procedures as its IDRP (even though the document did not mention Equiniti Paymaster). I gave a link to information on their Complaints Procedure (received 13th December 2015), raising the issue that Equiniti Paymaster did not appear to have an IDRP. I also asked whether they had contacted Equiniti Paymaster to bring about payment. I received no response to the serious issues I raised about Equiniti Paymaster - it seems I have nowhere to go in achieving justice for myself and other past, present, and future victims of Equiniti Paymaster's negligence, incompetence, and intransigence. As I write this addendum on 27 December 2018, with the benefit of subsequent experience and hindsight, it has become very clear that both TPAS and TPO are in the business of protecting pension providers (especially those with government connections). Their claims that they are impartial and do not take sides are barefaced lies. |
Another cheque from Equiniti Paymaster, for 16th February 2016 (maybe this is the last..) |
... No it isn't, received a cheque for 16th March 2016. |
This is the letter and envelope of a communication from Equiniti Paymaster, requiring a witnessed signature to a declaration that I am who is specified on the letter. The completed form is given in the section for 26 January below. This letter and form is dated 30 November 2018, and I received it on 21 January 2019 (the envelope is postmarked 18 January). This is actually much faster delivery than I have typically experienced in the past, but would still make it difficult or impossible for me to meet their 12-week deadline. Although this period is rather more generous than the 14 days allowed by Scottish Widows for a response to their forced use of post, post often takes much longer than this to arrive. As the return address is a PO box number, courier is not an option (in any case, it is very expensive). The fastest way I can return this form is by registered post, which is likely to take at least three weeks. And their requirements for witnessing caused me considerable difficulty... Even if it is reasonable to require me to complete this declaration, their requirements for witnessing it are certainly not. I also had to get the AFPS Form 8 from Veterans UK that I sent on 05 October 2015 witnessed, but this did not present a problem. The only option Equiniti Paymaster allows me for a witness is a notary public (in Mexico, this is an experienced government-appointed lawyer). In the witness declaration, it states that the witness must have known the signer for at least 12 months. This may be reasonable for a character reference from a personal acquaintance, but it is clearly not an appropriate specification for someone acting in a professional capacity. As a result of this requirement, together with the threat that false statements may result in criminal proceedings, I was at first refused. This was despite my having crossed out and made a note to cover the relevant section (see the completed form in 26 January below). After a great deal of worry, I managed to get this witnessed by the notary who had conducted a land purchase for me around five years ago, who was willing to act as witness on this basis. In all, I had to make three separate journeys to notary publics, and the fee I had to pay was much higher than expected (no doubt due to the difficulties created by Equiniti Paymaster). The financial hit was particularly severe given my very meagre circumstances (due in no small part to the Personal Pension Fiasco thanks to Scottish Widows and its protection by the corrupt Pensions Ombudsman). All this has caused me a considerable amount of trouble, worry, and expense. I have no doubt that they would not hesitate to stop my pension if I did not respond in time. Or even if I did, they could always claim that they did not receive my form (they claimed on 22 December 2015 that they did not receive the bank details form that I sent also by registered post on 08 October 2015, which I find unlikely). Otherwise, they could always claim that my details were invalid (as they also did with my bank details form on 11 January 2016). Unfortunately, my experiences with UK pension providers show that they act above the law in an environment without competition, regulation, oversight, or any effective complaints procedures, thus enabling them to abuse the pensioner with total impunity. And each time, they gain in keeping hold of the money - the pensioners lose. This, I have learned, is British justice - the corrupt organisation always prevails over the individual. |
I sent the completed form by registered post first thing 26 January 2019. This is the earliest I could possibly send it, with the difficulties noted above - I gave it top priority. The popup image is the proof of dispatch (one important piece of supporting evidence in my favour - as mentioned, a signed-for service was not possible). | |
After sending the form, I thought it prudent to send an email with a PDF document attached containing scans of the returned form with covering letter and additional documentation from the notary public. I also made clear the difficulties I had with their requirements, and suggested that it would be expedient to send me any future forms as PDF documents that I could print here (some chance). | |
Here is the completed form. The popup images cover only my declarations and the page for the witness. The PDF document is the attachment to the above email, as I sent it, containing the entire form plus other material. This was done quite late in the evening after the notary public had arrived back from Morelia (the state capital of Michoacán). I was unable to post it the next day (25 January), but posted it early on the 26 January. Apart from the stipulations for witnesses being inappropriate, they are also vague. What exactly is meant by | |
This is another automated email response stating that any reply will be sent by post (see 17 January 2016). I had made clear that I wished to communicate only by email, and that post is completely impractical. Thankfully, I do not need a reply. |