Dependencies?

Kate shared a link on the Delta Airlines shambles currently unfolding due to 'systems failure'. Her comment was that too many people aren't aware of the global dependencies due to IT systems. She's not wrong there.

This sparked a few more more hostile thoughts about Barclays and the general tardiness of Ian Malone and the Trustees.

Some days ago I wrote to Mr Francis, George(Redhill) advising him that I was not satisfied by the content of his email dated 22nd July, wherein he stated the bleeding obvious. The reason the task undertaken had not been completed within the timeframe was that Willis Towers Watson and Barclays had failed to complete the task on time.

He ignored completely the content of his colleague Ms Manktelow's earlier email. She had promised reasons and a revised date for completion.

After a few days George(Redhill) retaliated, in a nutshell his reply to my criticism claimed; 

"It's not my fault." 

It was he alleged , my fault. It was of course the old widow of Karridale who had introduced a delay. 

"Turning to your question of why a decision has not yet been reached for your IDRP dispute within the two months that the Trustee endeavours to respond, the main reason is that the Trustee wishes to confirm the death benefits payable to you as part of its response. However, as the completed Personal Information Form and other requested documents were not received until 19 July 2016, it has not been possible to finalise the investigations and respond fully to you at this point in time." 

So of course they couldn't work out whether Willis Towers Watson gave out incorrect information in 2015, and sent my husband the same incorrect information a few days after his death in 2016.

How could I expect Barclays, Willis Towers Watson, Ian Malone, or George(Redhill) to be able to look at the records, read the communications pertaining to my complaint, and make a decision about the accuracy and timeliness of administration actions relating to the late Paul Matthew's pension?

Why would I imagine for one moment that Willis Towers Watson might handle a complaint about administration separately from the Trustees making a decision as to whether my husband actually wanted me to be his beneficiary, and how much his pension monies might be?

One very good reason for the old widow to assume the two actions would be dealt with separately, that George(Redhill) appears to have overlooked in his hurry to blame me for the delay, is that the communication acknowledging my complaint included a statement making it clear that the complaint was being handled separately. Ms Manktelow wrote on 24th May;

"I can confirm that a complaint case has been logged for you and that we are currently conducting a full review of our records and the points you have raised. The complaint will be dealt with separately." 

As I agree it must be.

There is no dependency at this stage.

My allegation that Willis Towers Watson provided my husband with incorrect information relating to his pension on two occasions, and my assertion that they delayed responding to his communications for an unreasonable length of time can be investigated and adjudicated on without any need for his beneficiary to be identified.

But not according to George(Redhill).

At some point after Ms Manktelow wrote to advise "The complaint will be dealt with separately" some persons, as yet unidentified decided that this was not to be. There was going to be a dependency. They did not inform the old widow of the change.

What needs to be determined before any financial settlement can be planned are;

1 - Was there maladministration by The Barclays Team?  

2 - Who is Paul Matthews' beneficiary?

Those two questions need to be answered independently. 

Any delay in agreeing that there was maladministration cannot be dependent on who the beneficiary is. Any investigation into the maladministration cannot depend on who the beneficiary might be.

I started this entry by mentioning hostile thoughts, but that isn't really the case. It's more a general gloom and sadness about the future we are creating. By outsourcing administration to huge companies such as Willis Towers Watson we are making pensioners anonymous, and gifting control of our hard earned pensions to global institutions. 

In many instances these institutions will be populated by men and women who have not proved worthy of our trust.

Maybe it is time the public requested a register of all those involved in the banks and financial organisations. All those that led the world to the Global Financial Crisis. A 'Where Are They Now' register, to enable us all to track the careers of those globe trotting executives, the wealthy economic migrants who leave senior positions within corporations that are later found to have been steered into unethical waters. Senior people shift around under similar protection to that provided to child sex abusers by the churches. No financial institution ever wants to admit that they have senior people condoning, and in some cases initiating unethical business. They would rather recommend the offending executives move elsewhere.

Yes, the man or woman at the top is ultimately responsible, but for every Kenneth Lay there are many managers prepared to undertake the unethical work necessary to strip value from those who earn it. We have the locusts and the bees and we must understand that bad people do not change their ways readily. If a person is willing to exercise wilful blindness in one workplace, in order to preserve their financially rewarding career then they will do so throughout their career. Some may try to fool themselves that somehow, once they reach a position that allows them to behave more honestly they will become a different person, but they won't.

It was the Delta Airlines systems problems that started me thinking about Barclays again. George(Redhill) probably won't understand any of this but my friends will.

In 1985 Barclays recruited Paul to work on a complex relocation of their computer centre, to Cabot Lane, in Poole, Dorset. Paul had been heavily involved in a similar project undertaken in Birmingham, when Cadbury-Schweppes moved their computers from the lower level of the factory in Bournville Lane to a secure purpose built site at Laburnum House.

So, Barclays paid for us to relocate to the seaside, something Paul made clear to all who knew him was his heart's desire.

He didn't see an awful lot of the seaside then because he had to work some incredibly long hours, antisocial hours and anti-family life hours, for Barclays. Disruption to home life did not just involve the Cabot Lane move, interrupts could occur anytime when a systems failure was identified within the operating system deemed to be his area of expertise. 

Sometime it was nothing at all do with his area, but he was woken and called in anyway. Banking systems are too important to take any chances. Any hour of the day or night there will be systems programmers at work or on-call to fix problems, find solutions, so that the world wide banking systems can continue to function.

When the Cabot Lane move was completed Barclays advised him that they were relocating him to Manchester. He was no longer required in Poole. He had served his purpose. 

Back in the 1960s and 70s if we left our employer we lost the pension we had earned, but changes to pensions legislation no longer tied him in this way. He could retain the pension benefits he had earned and so he chose to leave Barclays rather than leave Poole. But Barclays had the last laugh, when he advised that he had a terminal illness and time was of the essence they just didn't do a thing. They knew he would die before he could secure his pension, because they make the rules.

Can any of you imagine the response from the Barclays directors if the IT personnel just gave a virtual shrug and went home before a system failure was resolved?

If systems people looked at the clock and said,

 "We just haven't done it, tough."

Maybe that happened at Delta Airlines? 
Maybe on the day Delta found themselves in trouble the little people had just reached their breaking point.