Ombudsman limits access by not going to court

LAVERICK: Different role to that of courts justifies scheme

Members of group pension schemes may be disadvantaged by the decision of the pensions ombudsman not to be represented before appeals of decisions he has made, it emerged this week.

In his first annual report, solicitor ombudsman David Laverick - who replaced fellow solicitor Julian Farrand in the role last year - said he would no longer seek representation before appeals of his decisions.

He said: 'I intend to approach my task on the basis that the ombudsman has a different role from the courts and that different role may lead to a different outcome for the parties.' He noted that 'some judges do not share my understanding of what parliament intends ombudsmen to do', adding that if it was intended that ombudsmen should do the same as courts, there would be no need for them.

Philip Bennett, a pensions partner at City firm Slaughter and May, said that - although it was 'bizarre' constitutionally that the ombudsman could be represented at appeals of decisions made by him - the decision to stop doing so could be a retrograde step for access to justice.

He said: 'Many members of pensions schemes cannot afford to fund representations at appeals of decisions by the ombudsman which have gone in their favour.

So he often represented their interests.'

A spokesman for Mr Laverick said he was mindful that this might be the effect of his decision, and that he would continue to keep an open mind over whether he should be represented at appeals.

Jeremy Fleming