The Ombudsman had sought to rule on a complaint against the applicants. They said the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction.
Held: For jurisdiction the Ombudsman had to rely upon his statutory powers. Those allowed him to rule on those who were, or acted as administrators of a pension scheme; those who ran it. ‘It is of the essence for a person to be or act as an administrator that he shall have assumed an administrative role . . ‘on the trustees’ side’ in the administration of the Scheme’s affairs. ‘ That did not apply here, and there was no jurisdiction for the Ombudsman.
Judges:
Mr Justice Lightman
Citations:
Times 16-Apr-2002, [2002] EWHC 441 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Pensions Act 1995 157, Pension Schemes Act 1993 146(4), Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Ombudsman) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2475) 1(2) 2(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Britannic Asset Management Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Pensions Ombudsman CA 14-Oct-2002
The Ombudsman appealed a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the respondents in their provision of administrative support for pensions schemes.
Held: A person who took an ‘act of administration concerned with the scheme’ was not . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Britannic Asset Management Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Pensions Ombudsman CA 14-Oct-2002
The Ombudsman appealed a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the respondents in their provision of administrative support for pensions schemes.
Held: A person who took an ‘act of administration concerned with the scheme’ was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Financial Services
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.168740