Malone's Response

How disappointing to receive Ian Malone's response to my complaint. Disappointment may be too strong a word for the emotion I felt because of course his reply had been anticipated, Ian Malone is part of "The Barclays Team". 

At this mid management level he knows enough not to throw any immediately obvious "not our fault" statements into the discussion. George from Redhill did this a few weeks back, but Malone is more aware, probably has more gamesmanship. More Essex nous than barrow boy.

Malone begins with the usual fake sympathy statement we have come to expect in communications from "The Barclays Team". These young strangers use words to suggest that the death of Paul Matthews and the burden of grief I carry is of some relevance to them and their world. It isn't, and after the niceties are concluded they then continue to demonstrate that, for "The Barclays Team" Paul Matthews death is just as irrelevant as his life was when he worked for the Barclays corporation.

Malone plays the sympathy card and then continues the correspondence by providing an extensive explanation of the thorough investigation he has undertaken. Maybe this is reassurance for the widow that she isn't being ignored? Maybe not.

He opens with remarks that are borderline conciliatory;

"I have decided that I will partially uphold your complaint..." 

He is using primacy here to soften the target - maybe he has forgotten that he is writing to an old person. Most old persons recognise this tactic and move directly to the substance, the body of the missive.

He explains why "The Barclays Team" at Willis Towers Watson spent 25 days to produce a transfer value in 2015. I don't know why he did this, a way to fill in his time maybe. After all he did have to take the full four months to complete this exhaustive investigation. I certainly had not complained about the length of time Willis Towers Watson had taken to produce the transfer value in 2015. 

I complained about the misinformation and the failure to send Paul the documents he required to process the transfer.

Here is the opening statement from my letter of complaint;

"I am writing to explain why I feel aggrieved at the manner in which my late husband’s request to transfer his pension to Equitable Life was delayed to the point where it can no longer proceed. My distress at this time is considerably increased by knowing that he tried to ensure my financial security and now his hard earned pension is lost due to the maladministration of The Barclays Team.

My husband exchanged emails with a Ms Bienko, from The Barclays Team, in June 2015. At that time he asked for clarification of the wording of her letter which stated;

“I am only able to proceed with a transfer if the receiving scheme is a Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme” 

That statement that was highlighted in my letter to ensure Ian Malone could not possibly miss it. 

He just ignored it. 

That statement is just wrong. There  was nothing to stop the Barclays pension monies being transferred to the UK Equitable Life pension fund as Paul wanted. The barrier to him proceeding was that Ms Bienko had made it clear she could not do as she had been asked and therefore she did not send Paul the forms he required.

Malone then moves on to make a lengthy explanation regarding delays in 2016, when Willis Towers Watson also took longer than their standard time for processing a request. But he weasels a bit here, arguing that it really wasn't too much longer, just 3 days more than the target service level. Just a few days can't really be a problem to anyone at all, unless of course you are dying. 

What he does not address at all is that in 2016 that same incorrect advice that was sent in 2015 was repeated;

"I am only able to proceed with a transfer if the receiving scheme is a Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme ..."

At this point did Malone think at all about how he would like to be treated should he ever be in my husband's position? 

Apparently not. He also ignored any possibility that there might be the potential for the scheme administrators to escalate a service request if the member told them he had some difficulty, like brain cancer.

An ordinary member of a pension scheme might expect the scheme administrators to have some capacity to fast track an enquiry when it contains information such as my husband's email did;

"I have an acute terminal illness (brain cancer) and have decided to transfer to a new UK pension fund - the Equitable Life.

Would you kindly arrange to supply the relevant forms."

Malone sees no reason at all to do anything to assist a scheme member in such desperate circumstances. He makes no comment as to how satisfied the writer of the email advising of a terminal illness wishing to transfer to the UK Equitable Life ought to be when they receive the same wrong response that they had raised as a query a year earlier;

"I am only able to proceed with a transfer if the receiving scheme is a Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme ..."

Malone chooses to ignore the main complaint that the wrong advice accompanied by the wrong paperwork was sent to my husband in 2015, and again in 2016. After ignoring my complaint he then deviates wildly from the path that a more sincere investigator might take.

He veers off into pure speculation as to what might have happened had the correct information been sent to my husband in March 2016. He offers no explanation as to why his speculation doesn't fit the complaint, he doesn't speculate as to what might have eventuated had the correct information and documents been sent to my husband in 2015.

I will deal with his speculative comments in other posts. But for now some of you might have a smile when he advises how difficult it might have been for us to get an IFA to play the game with us. We had already moved our Cadbury-Schweppes pension funds to Equitable Life without any delays or issues arising. Only "The Barclays Team" at Willis Towers Watson find a pension transfer a major undertaking.

Maybe we should all be concerned that some pension providers are placing barriers in the way of people trying to enjoy the new pension freedoms. If we receive a pension, rather than manage our money through draw downs then we certainly need to be concerned about the way that these are calculated and how easily errors can occur. 

Is everyone within the Barclays and Willis Towers Watson organisation trained to ignore the difficult parts of any communications they receive? Brain cancer, terminal illness, too hard to think about, let's just ignore the old man and hope he dies before we need to do a transfer.

The effect of the wrong advice in 2015 was that the transfer did not happen. 

At that time the Barclays actuary calculated that Paul had £121,112 available to transfer from the Barclays  Pension Fund. If the transfer to Equitable Life had occurred then that full amount would now pass to me tax free, because I am his spouse and he was under the age of 75 when he died. In place of the tax free £121,112 Barclays sent a valuation dated 5th May 2016 offering a taxable spouse's pension of £872.50 per year.

I will be 70 in a few months. Can anyone calculate which is the best deal for me? 
Or do we need an IFA to undertake that task?

Malone ends his explanation as to why I did not suffer any financial loss due to maladministration by saying that they have decided to pay me the arrears from the Barclays scheme. There are actually no arrears because my Paul never touched his pension funds. But now Malone is planning to pretend somehow that Paul had been given a pension. Paul had never claimed any pension from this fund as he was watching the changes introduced by the government that offered better options. Better options did arise, but Barclays didn't want to comply. Paul wanted the money to remain intact to assist me with my purchase of a UK home when he died.

As a final insult Malone suggests I can claim £500 in expenses. 

A sum which will barely cover the costs of the certificates and registered express post incurred as a result of this debacle. It certainly won't cover the hours I have spent gathering evidence of the maladministration by "The Barclays Team". 

But, as my dear man would have said, "It'll make a chapter in the book!" 
Indeed it will.