Nissan Pension Plan · CAS-32968-W4L2

CAS-32968-W4L2

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr E

Scheme Nissan Pension Plan (the Plan)

Respondents Trustees of the Nissan Pension Plan (The Trustee)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-32968-W4L2

2 CAS-32968-W4L2

3 CAS-32968-W4L2

4 CAS-32968-W4L2

5 CAS-32968-W4L2

6 CAS-32968-W4L2

Adjudicator’s Opinion

7 CAS-32968-W4L2

The Trustee confirmed it accepted the Adjudicator’s findings, but Mr E did not, so the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr E provided his further comments which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note the additional points raised by Mr E.

A summary of Mr E’s further comments are as follows:-

• There was no suitable communication given to members about the change in PCLS commutation basis and how this would impact them.

• He considered the change to the PCLS commutation basis was of material significance. Nissan or the Trustee had a duty to consult members, so a formal consultation period of not less than 60 days’ duration should have been instituted.

• Similarly, he believed the duty to ensure the proper funding of the Plan was not conducted appropriately since he believes there was no evidence of a consideration of the requirement to support current pensioners, who would be affected by such a significant change.

• He had not sought a discretionary increase but was complaining about the fact that such a significant change as the PCLS commutation basis had not been communicated to members.

• The subsequent removal of discretionary increases was carried out in an unfair and “underhand method”.

• Such increases would not need to be required for all pensioner members but rather would be necessary only for long-serving members who were employed prior to 1997.

• Prior to making his choice of PCLS and pension, he had sought advice from retired colleagues and had felt reassured by the information these pensioner members had supplied regarding the choice of which option to take for his pension benefits.

8 CAS-32968-W4L2 • He believed the Adjudicator’s point about being offered choices was flawed, as he would have required professional help to interpret these choices, which he did not seek as he was unaware of the change to the PCLS commutation basis.

Ombudsman’s decision

9 CAS-32968-W4L2

The Plan is governed by the Nissan Pension Plan.

• Schedule 1, Rule 19, Amendment of Rules, provides:-

10 CAS-32968-W4L2

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 25 February 2021

11