The complainant, referred to as Mr K, “suffered much distress”, The Pensions Ombudsman said, as a result of delays, after the death of her husband.

The husband, referred to as Mr K, died in March 2015 of cirrhosis of the liver. He was a member of a scheme provided by Fast Pensions.

Fast Pensions been ordered to pay the £79,160.94 pension fund value after the Ombudsman ruled in the complainant’s favour.

In 2013 he had agreed to a recommendation from a financial adviser to transfer his accrued benefits under the NHS Scotland pension scheme to the Fast Pensions scheme on the basis that, due to his alcoholic dependency, his life expectancy was short and the death benefits payable from the scheme would be better for Mrs K.

The old scheme would provide a small pension and no lump sum whereas the Fast Pensions scheme would provide a lump sum equal to twice the value of his pension fund.

When Mrs K contacted Fast Pensions, the firm told her that there was an insurance company exclusion for death caused by alcohol addiction. Mrs K complained that she and her husband had been unaware of the restriction, and had thought the whole benefit would be paid automatically.

It subsequently asked her to fill a form in to make the claim but it would need to see confirmation of Mr and Mrs K’s marriage and Mr K’s will. Mrs K disputed that that evidence was necessary under Scots law, but Fast Pensions said that was its policy.

Mrs K invoked Fast Pensions’ internal dispute resolution procedure as she said she was unhappy with the service that it had provided and because of the delays she still had funeral debts, mortgage arrears and solicitor’s bills to pay.
Fast Pensions told Mrs K’s financial adviser on 2 September 2015 that it was not using delaying tactics, as had been suggested, and said the trustee of the scheme was reviewing the documentation submitted.

An ombudsman adjudicator said the lump sum death benefit should have been paid by 5 March 2017 and stated in the report that “delay constituted maladministration on the part of Fast Pensions”.

Mrs K was “not responsible for the delays that occurred” and “suffered much distress and inconvenience as a consequence of the delays on the part of Fast Pensions”.

The ombudsman service said Fast Pensions had failed to respond to the adjudicator’s decision to uphold the complaint and Mrs K was concerned that Fast Pensions would ignore it.

The matter was therefore passed to Karen Johnston, Deputy Pensions Ombudsman, who backed the decision.

She said: “We have dealt with a number of other cases recently involving Fast Pensions, where there have been continued failures to respond to requests and payment/transfer applications.

“Fast Pensions has also failed to communicate effectively with this office. 
Based on the evidence we have, I agree that maladministration has been established, and therefore I uphold Mrs K’s complaint.”

She ordered Fast Pensions to:

• within 28 days of this determination, pay Mrs K the lump sum death benefit of £79,160.94
• within 28 days of this determination, pay Mrs K £1,600 to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her by Fast Pensions’ maladministration
• promptly pay any tax charge that HM Revenue & Customs imposes on the Scheme or on Mrs K for payment of the lump sum death benefit more than two years after Mr K’s death.