Claimants vindicated again

Sunday 10 February 2008 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Pensioners battling the Government over lost investments have won the latest round in their attempts to claim back their money.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the verdict that official leaflets helped to promote the mistaken belief among the 125,000 claimants that their money would be safe in their companies' occupational pension schemes. These were later closed due to insolvency.

The parliamentary ombudsman found in favour of the claimants two years ago, and recommended that compensation be paid. They are still waiting for the money amid a lengthy legal process.

The Appeals Court dismissed the Government's latest appeal against the ombudsman's decision as "irrational". But after exhausting all other avenues, the Government may yet submit a further appeal to the House of Lords.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said: "We will want to consider this complex and lengthy judgment in more detail before deciding whether to pursue an appeal."

The DWP acknowledges that the finding of maladministration was upheld, but has argued that this was not the cause of the losses incurred.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in