The Pensions Ombudsman has dismissed a complaint by the husband of a deceased Local Government Pension Scheme member, upholding the council's decision to pay the lump sum death benefit to the member's adult daughter, as nominated on her death benefit nomination forms. The Ombudsman agreed with the council that it was not obliged to investigate allegations by the husband that the daughter had carried out transactions on the member's bank account without her consent. It is not unusual for decision-makers in pension scheme death benefit cases to be faced with different versions of events from different surviving family members. We take a look at the Ombudsman's decision and what it tells us about the Ombudsman's likely approach to disputed death benefit decisions.
The Ombudsman has dismissed a complaint by the husband of a deceased Local Government Pension Scheme member, upholding the council's decision to pay the lump sum death benefit to the member's adult daughter, as nominated on her death benefit nomination forms. The Ombudsman agreed with the council that it was not obliged to investigate allegations by the husband that the daughter had carried out transactions on the member's bank account without her consent (CAS-92761-H7Q6).
The member, Mrs R, died in 2019. In 2005 and again in 2006 she had nominated her daughter to receive the full amount of any lump sum death benefit payable under the scheme.
The scheme rules gave the council discretion over the recipient of the lump sum, and both Mrs R's husband and her daughter were potential beneficiaries. On learning that the council was minded to pay the full lump sum to the daughter, the husband objected. He alleged that the daughter had carried out fraudulent transactions on Mrs R's bank account and submitted copies of bank statements to the council in support of his accusation. The council received conflicting information from the daughter. It found the evidence to be inconclusive and considered that further investigation would be disproportionate. It decided to pay the full lump sum to the daughter in accordance with the nomination forms.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint made by Mrs R's husband. He acknowledged that a different decision-maker might have made a different decision to that made by the council, but found that the council's decision was not one which no reasonable decision-maker could have made. Regarding the alleged fraudulent transactions, the Ombudsman agreed with the council's position and did not find that the council should have carried out its own investigation into the allegations.
Our thoughts
Decision-makers in death benefit cases sometimes have to deal with situations where they are presented with different versions of events by different surviving family members. This determination acknowledges that there are limits as to how far a decision-maker can be expected to go in investigating allegations made by one family member against another.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
