Army Preserved Pension Fiasco
Overview and Conclusion
The above was due an Army Preserved Pension and Terminal Grant upon reaching the age of 60 on 13th September 2015. Although APO Form 44 was sent by DHL Express Letter on 6th June 2015, no payment was made until 18th April 2016. Considerable delays in the early stages of the application were due to extremely slow post, especially that from the UK. There were no issues with the processing of APO Form 44 and AFPS Form 8 by Veterans UK, who sent the Award Letter on 26th October 2015.
The purpose of this document is to expose the subsequent gross negligence and prolonged intransigence of Equiniti Paymaster in the creation and processing of its Overseas Payment Mandate.
|Veterans UK||The Defence Business Service that administrates army pensions.|
|Equiniti Paymaster||The agent that pays pensions on behalf of Veterans UK (and other organisations, including the NHS).|
|Terminal Grant||A gratuity of 3 times the annual pension, due when the pension is put into effect.|
|APO Form 44||The form received on leaving the army, on which the initial application was made.|
(Sent by DHL Express Letter on 6th June 2015; processed by Veterans UK)
|AFPS Form 8||The form sent by Veterans UK on receiving the completed APO Form 44.|
(Completed form returned by registered post on 5th October 2015)
|Award Letter||Sent by Veterans UK on successful processing of the completed AFPS Form 8|
(Dated 26th October 2015)
|Overseas Payment Mandate (OPM)||The country-specific form on which overseas bank account details must be entered (created and processed by Equiniti Paymaster).|
(Completed form sent by registered post on 8th October 2015; Scan to replace original lost form emailed 23rd December 2015)
This case arises from the grossly erroneous OPM discussed here. But far worse than the negligence involved in its production was the misconduct of Equiniti Paymaster after receiving the completed OPM. Had they accepted the efforts of the Plaintiff in coping with the defects of this OPM and made payment accordingly, this case would not have arisen. But instead, Equiniti Paymaster refused to acknowledge any failings, and over a protracted period continued to stonewall efforts to resolve the matter. This is one case of the negligent conduct of this company resulting in prolonged complete denial of pension.