|
Man’s pension seized by Family Maintenance Program
Family Maintenance Enforcement Program
2006 Annual Report
We were contacted by Mr. M who said he had been left penniless
because all of his pension income was being seized by the Family
Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP).
We spoke with a Manager at FMEP
to find out why 100 per cent of Mr. M’s federal pension had been
garnished, even though provincial legislation allows for a
maximum of only 25 per cent of a federal pension to be seized.
The Manager discovered that
Manitoba’s Maintenance Enforcement Program had seized 100 per
cent of Mr. M’s Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Pension, which
was permitted under Manitoba legislation.
The Manager asked the Manitoba
program to stop seizing Mr. M’s pension funds because he was no
longer living in that province. The Manager also arranged for
Mr. M to receive a refund from the Manitoba program.
Letters to survivors of WCB pensioners improved
Workers’ Compensation Board
2005 Annual Report
Ms E disagreed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal’s
decision that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) was correct
in making her survivor’s pension effective the date she applied
for the pension instead of the date when her husband passed
away.
Ms E’s late husband was
receiving a WCB pension at the time of his death. She maintained
that her delay in applying for a survivor’s pension was because
she was unaware that the cause of her husband’s death was listed
on a schedule of diseases for which survivor’s pensions could be
obtained. She claimed that the WCB should have reviewed her
husband’s cause of death and his occupation and alerted her to
her eligibility for a survivor’s pension.
We reviewed the tribunal’s
decision and discussed it with Ms E. We noted that the workplace
injuries for which her late husband was receiving a WCB pension
were unrelated to the cause of his death. We also observed that
the Workers’ Compensation Act places the onus on the applicant
and not on the WCB to apply for benefits and pensions.
Although there was nothing that
we could do to assist Ms E with her particular situation, we did
obtain the WCB’s agreement to modify its letters to the
survivors of WCB pensioners. The revised wording alerts
survivors to the possibility that their spouses’ cause of death
may entitle them to further pension benefits and that they
should contact the WCB to discuss their circumstances.
Corporation amends
pension
BC Pension Corporation
2005 Annual Report
Ms J contacted the office and
said that when she worked at a care facility, she received two
retroactive wage increases in two lump sum payments. Ms J said
she was notified by the BC Pension Corporation that these
amounts were not included in the calculation of her pension
because her former employer had advised the corporation that the
payments were for work done for a society owned by the employer,
which was not a pensionable employer. Ms J sent written
information to the corporation showing that the payments were
for her work at the facility, not for any work done at the
society. The corporation refused to change its decision.
When our office contacted the
corporation, we learned that it generally relies on the employer
to report whether amounts paid to the employee are pensionable.
In Ms J’s case, the corporation relied on a letter provided by
the employer stating that the amounts were not pensionable
because the payments were made to the employee for her work done
at the society.
We discussed with the
corporation the written information sent to it by Ms J and the
corporation agreed that the information raised some questions
about the statement provided by the employer. The corporation
advised that it would ask the employer to provide further
documentation to support its position. When the employer was
unable to provide the documentation, the corporation accepted Ms
J’s version of events and amended her pension to include the two
payments.
Pension plan equalizes benefits for people
Ministry of Health Services (Medical Services Plan)
2004 Annual Report
In 2002, (Ombudsman Howard Kushner) initiated an investigation
into the policy of two of the four public sector pension plans
(Public Service and Municipal), to deny certain benefits to
pensioners living outside BC. At that time, retirement benefits
included health benefits and a dental plan. These benefits were
available on retirement for those retirees living in BC, but
ceased if the pensioner left BC. This begged the question “why?”
If health or dental benefits are part of the pension “package,”
why would place of residence affect eligibility for or provision
of these benefits?
Early on in our review, we
determined that retirees from the other two public sector plans
(college employees and teachers) did receive the same health
benefits inside and outside BC, provided they remained in
Canada. While there may be administrative difficulties
processing claims for massage therapy in Moose Jaw or a root
canal in Rankin Inlet, clearly the other two pension plans had
found solutions to, or made accommodation for, these
administrative issues.
We asked the Public Service and
Municipal Pension Boards to explain their reasons for
determining the availability of these benefits based on place of
residence. We asked if pensioners living outside BC received any
other benefit or allowance that would offset the apparent
unfairness of ineligibility for extended health and dental
coverage. Our investigation became complicated by a change in BC
legislation governing the four public sector pension plans.
Authority for and management of the pension plans devolved from
boards appointed by the province to four boards of trustees,
composed of representatives of the employers and employees
covered by each of the plans. This change brought into question
my office’s authority to investigate complaints about the four
pension boards of trustees, and so our investigation was
suspended during a lengthy process ending with an amendment to
the Schedule to the Ombudsman Act and confirmation of our
authority to resume work on this file. In the meantime, the
Municipal and Public Sector pension plans decided to change
their practice.
Starting in 2005, new retirees
living outside BC or moving out of BC continue to be eligible
for benefits. Those pensioners living in Canada, who were
previously ineligible, will receive a letter offering them the
option to sign up for benefits, in a 90-day window.
Mobile intake clinic assists senior citizen
Ministry of Health Services (Medical Services Plan)
2004 Annual Report
People often feel it’s no use to disagree when a government
agency tells them that they have to follow a certain process.
Sometimes, our office is able to advise and assist people in
obtaining results they seek.
At one of our recent mobile
intake clinics, a senior citizen came to us because she was told
that the only way she could challenge a redlight camera ticket
was to appear in court. Ms K believed this was unreasonable
because she had clear evidence that a mistake had been made in
issuing her ticket. Although she had submitted a dispute of the
ticket, she asked us if there was anything that we could do to
avoid going to court.
Ms K had been suffering from
pneumonia and had not gone outside for weeks. When she was
finally feeling well enough to drive, someone told her that her
rear licence plate was missing. She immediately reported the
theft of her licence plate to the police. A few weeks later, she
received a ticket alleging that she was the owner of a car that
had driven through a red light. The photograph on the red light
camera ticket showed her licence plate attached to a late model,
grey vehicle. Her white, 20-year-old car bore no resemblance to
the vehicle in the photograph.
We learned that no one could
cancel the ticket because she had commenced an appeal.
However, at our request,
officials with the Ministry of Attorney General did investigate
this situation and confirmed Ms K’s account of what had
happened. We were advised that the ministry would be asking the
Crown Counsel responsible for conducting the prosecution to stay
the charges. She would not need to attend court on the scheduled
date in order to have her ticket set aside.
Waiting period waived for reimbursement to 90 year old
PharmaCare
2004 Annual Report
A man called on behalf of his 90-year-old mother in June after
she had been told that an overpayment she made to PharmaCare
could not be reimbursed until after the end of the year. The
woman felt, considering her age, it was unfair to have to wait
to recover the overpayment.
When PharmaCare became aware of
the woman’s age, they agreed to reimburse her immediately.
PharmaCare advised that it was unfortunate that when she had
called to request reimbursement the women had not been advised
she could apply for early retroactive payment.
Vancouver Island Health
Authority
Mr K complained about the
residency requirements of the
Vancouver Island Health
Authority (VIHA) for obtaining
subsidized placement of his
93-year-old mother in a
long-term care facility. He
explained that he and his wife
had moved to British Columbia
from Ontario several months
previously. Since his mother had
no other family members or
friends left in Ontario, there
was no choice but to move her
too. He described his mother as
requiring a secure long-term
care home because of her
dementia. Her only income, he
said, was CPP and Old Age
Security. VIHA told him that his
mother would not qualify for any
subsidies or be placed on a
waiting list until she had
resided in BC for a year. The
complainant believed the
residency requirement was unfair
because as a pensioner himself,
it was difficult for him to help
pay the cost of a private
facility.
After we contacted VIHA about
this matter, the Director of
Risk Management told us that
according to the records, there
had been only an informal
enquiry from the complainant
about the requirements of the
program in this province. He
said that staff did not
interpret this as a formal
request for waiving the
residency requirement. The
Director arranged to have
someone contact the complainant
for more information about the
mother’s
situation and to make
arrangements for an assessment
of her condition. Subsequently,
a facility liaison person from
VIHA assessed the complainant’s
mother as requiring care,
approved the application for
waiver of the residency
requirement, and placed the
mother on a waiting list for a
facility.
Health Authority
2003 Annual Report
An elderly woman, Ms C,
complained that her local health
authority failed to provide her
with adequate home-support
services. She said that her
husband was recently placed in a
care facility, but she remained
at home with a number of
different medical problems that
made it increasingly difficult
for her to cope on her own.
Ms. C noted that most
recently, problems with her
knees made it impossible for her
to transfer herself into her
wheelchair to get to the
washroom. This led to concerns
about personal hygiene. Both her
home-support case manager and
her physician seemed
unsympathetic, telling her she
was not trying hard enough to
cope on her own. She wanted an
immediate increase in her
home-support hours, but her goal
was to obtain a bed in a care
facility, for she felt that even
with adequate support she could
no longer cope at home.
Ms. C had limited interpersonal
skills, and it seemed possible
that her some what
confrontational manner might
have obscured her real need for
additional help. We advised the
health authority of the
complaint and were pleased with
the immediate and helpful
response. Ms. C’s home-support
needs were re-assessed
immediately and her hours were
doubled. A further assessment
was conducted some days later
and her hours were again
increased. In the meantime, the
health authority placed her on
the waitlist for the first
available long-term care bed in
her community and a place was
found for her only a few days
later.
2002 Annual Report
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about a public agency when
it appears that the agency has not met its duty of care in
ensuring the accuracy of the information it provides. The public
has a right to expect that information provided by public
agencies is accurate.
People make life-changing
decisions on the basis of information provided by agencies that
have the legislated authority to deliver programs and services.
One such agency was the Superannuation Commission (now the
Pension Corporation).
Several years ago a person
contacted the Office of the Ombudsman with a complaint that
Superannuation Commission officials had acted unfairly in giving
wrong information and then in failing to correct the impact of
that error on her anticipated pension. The woman said that she
opted to retire on the basis of the information provided in the
Commission’s pension estimate. However, after retirement she
discovered that her pension was approximately $240 per month
less than anticipated, a reduction of about 25 percent.
In the mid-1990s the Province
was offering downsizing incentive packages. In the course of
considering her options, the woman requested that the
Superannuation Commission provide her with a “pension estimate.”
Over a period of approximately four months, she received four
different estimates of pension payments, finally signing one
that indicated a pension of $833 per month and included the
warning:
This estimate is based on
information currently contained in our records. A minor
adjustment may be required at the time of actual retirement.
Based on this information, the
woman retired. When she received her first pension cheque she
was shocked to discover that it was for $592, not the expected
$833 with “minor” adjustments. Unable to resolve the issue with
the Superannuation Commission or through an appeal to the
Pension (Public Service) Board, the woman contacted the
Ombudsman’s Office. By this point the Superannuation Commission
had acknowledged that the pension estimate it had provided was
wrong due to a mathematical error. However, Superannuation
Commission officials maintained that they could only pay the
pension to which the woman was entitled.
In the course of our
investigation we identified the following questions related to
the fairness of the Commission’s position:
•What is the duty of care of
the (now) Pension Corporation in providing pension
estimates? Given that pension information is extremely
complex and yet vital information for those members planning
their retirement, how far must members go to double check
the Pension Corporation’s information, or can they
reasonably rely on what they are told?
• If the Pension Corporation
knows its information may not be sufficiently complete or
accurate for reliance, what kind of notice or warning should
it give to members who need estimates? Can the Pension
Corporation provide a member with a more detailed
explanation of the information used to reach an estimate so
that the member has the chance to notice any possible errors
or omissions?
• If a member is entitled to
rely on the information given by the Pension Corporation and
to receive the “promised” pension even if it is higher than
actual entitlement, who pays the difference? The Pension
Plan holds the contributions of members, with accrued
investment earnings. Any money paid out by the Plan comes
from the earnings of its members and so reduces the funds
available for other payments.
• What, if any,
responsibility is there for a member to try to mitigate the
loss? In this case it took the woman approximately nine
months to find another job and several years to find a job
with earnings equal to those of the job from which she had
resigned.
The primary reason for the
lengthy delay in resolving this matter was the difficulty in
quantifying the woman’s loss. In the end, and without
acknowledging either responsibility for the woman’s loss or
acknowledging that a member can reasonably rely on an estimate,
the Pension Corporation made an offer to settle the complaint
with a payment of $10,000. This was acceptable to the woman and
seemed a reasonable resolution in the circumstances.
I am pleased to add that what
happened in this case would be less likely to happen now. In the
years since the woman retired, the Pension Corporation has
increased the information available to members who are wondering
what pension they may expect. The Pension Corporation’s website
now includes an on-line tool for producing one’s own estimate.
Here a member puts in his/her own information, spouse’s age,
options to purchase service, etc., and generates information on
the costs and benefits of different permutations.
BC Pension Corporation
2001 Annual Report
Mr. P worked in Alberta as a public servant for 18 years before
taking a job with the public service in British Columbia in
1990. The reciprocity agreement in place between the two
provinces at the time (now defunct) allowed an employee to
transfer pension credits to B.C. rather than collect a pension
from Alberta at retirement. Mr. P enquired about this transfer
option and received and signed a transfer application. This
application indicated that the transferred money might or might
not be adequate to purchase the same years of pension credit in
B.C. Mr. P signed without asking for more details.
In fact, pension credit
transfers from Alberta generally resulted in a significant
shortfall. Either the pension credits bought fewer years of
service, or the employee had to provide additional funds. Staff
in Alberta questioned Superannuation Commission staff about
whether Mr. P had been informed of the effect of the transfer.
Although the Alberta staff did
not receive an answer, the pension credit transferred in 1992.
Only then did Mr. P learn that either he would lose almost six
of his 18 years service, or he would have to pay $34,000.
Mr. P spent a year trying to
address the problem through discussions with the Superannuation
Commission – including trying to return the money to Alberta –
before contacting this office early in 1994. The complaint he
brought forward was that the commission had failed to provide
him with adequate information on which to make a prudent
decision about his pension holdings.
The initial fact-finding portion
of our investigation was complete by October 1994. The Ombudsman
at that time reached tentative findings that, in fact, the
commission had failed to provide appropriate and timely
information, and that the value of Mr. P’s pension was affected
by that failure. The next two years were spent in discussions
and correspondence between this office and the commission as we
sought common ground both on the degree, if any, to which the
commission had failed, and the financial effect of such a
failure.
In late 1996, the matter
remained unresolved and this office issued formal findings that
the Superannuation Commission had been administratively
negligent. The findings included a recommendation that the
commission restore Mr. P to the financial position he would have
been in if he had not transferred his pension.
At this point, this office
viewed the file as substantiated: there had been an unfairness
which was unrectified and the complainant remained
disadvantaged. This presented us with two options. We could
report the case, close the file, and leave the inequity
unaddressed, or we could continue discussions with the
commission, seeking ways to achieve a settlement.
From October 1996 to June 2000
we pursued the latter course, discussing the apportionment of
responsibility, the arcane and minute effects of actuarial
computations, the effect of the creation of the British Columbia
Pension Corporation, which superseded the Superannuation
Commission, and the creation of new joint trustee pension
boards.
In July 2000, our office and the
British Columbia Pension Corporation agreed on what it would
take to settle the matter fairly. However, according to the
corporation, it could not make the proposed payment without
permission of the Public Service Pension Advisory Board. That
board declined to accept the settlement proposal in September
2000, shortly before being replaced by a new joint trustee
board, the Public Service Pension Board of Trustees.
Initially it was not clear
whether the Public Service Pension Board of Trustees came within
our office’s jurisdiction. In addition, the new board was
reluctant to rectify an unfairness that had happened long before
it was appointed.
In 2001 we wrote to the Minister
of Finance asking that the government move to break the impasse
and resolve the complaint. In December 2001, the ministry made a
proposal that this office believed addressed conclusively the
effect of the original omission on Mr. P’s future pension
rights. The proposal being satisfactory to Mr. P, the province
made a payment to the Pension Corporation of one-half the amount
necessary to purchase the 5.8 years of service “lost” when Mr. P
moved to B.C. Mr. P has since purchased the balance, and our
file has closed.
Throughout the years of
investigation, Mr. P demonstrated both patience with the process
and considerable belief in this office.
BC Pension Corporation
2001 Annual Report
Mrs. V, a widow and pensioner,
complained to this office that the British Columbia
Pension Corporation had
temporarily discontinued her pension payments following the
death of her husband, causing her unnecessary hardship.
According to Mrs. V, she had been designated a joint beneficiary
of her husband’s pension and had expected the payments to
continue uninterrupted. She also complained that the corporation
was improperly deducting amounts they described as
“overpayments” from her pension cheques.
On investigating, we learned
that Mrs. V had failed to notify the Pension Corporation of her
husband’s death and that the corporation had continued to
deposit his pension cheques into their joint bank account as if
he were still alive. When the corporation learned of the death,
it notified Mrs. V of the procedures to transfer the pension to
her name and to receive other benefits. When Mrs. V failed to
respond, the corporation halted payment of her deceased
husband’s pension while continuing to communicate with Mrs. V,
explaining the need to provide the required documents.
Once Mrs. V provided the
documents, the Pension Corporation paid her the pension benefits
to which she was entitled, retroactive to the beginning of the
month following her husband’s death. It also deducted from her
pension the payments erroneously made to her husband after his
death, payments that she had used as if they were hers.
After consulting with this
office, the Pension Corporation agreed to write to Mrs. V to
explain the sequence of events and why the deduction was
necessary. However, on reviewing the file, corporation officials
discovered that a larger than appropriate amount had been
deducted. This discovery led to an apology and to Mrs. V being
reimbursed the difference.
While we considered this a
satisfactory settlement of the complaint, we did decide to write
to Mrs. V to ensure that she understood why the Pension
Corporation had acted as it had, and why we considered her
complaints resolved.
Ministry of Health
2001 Annual Report
Residents of care facilities pay a user fee to the Ministry of
Health. The fee, set annually, is based on residents’ income.
Over the years, the ministry has
used various methods to determine income. For example, the
ministry has used Medical Services Plan premium rates as a
reference point, assuming that residents receiving assistance
with premiums were likely to have the lowest incomes, while
those not on premium assistance must have a level of income that
would justify higher user fees. However, in some cases, these
assumptions were incorrect: residents with very low incomes were
paying full premium rates and, consequently, the highest
facility user fees.
Before coming to the Office of
the Ombudsman, the families of two residents had tried without
success to resolve the problem through discussions with the care
facilities, the health regions and the Ministry of Health. In
one case, health region staff had recommended that the family be
offered a refund, but the ministry refused. In the end, the
staff recommended to the family that they contact this office.
When we advised the ministry of
the complaints, we were disappointed to find that the ministry
was uncooperative. There was difficulty in obtaining
information, inaccurate communications, delays and an
unwillingness to accept the possibility that refunds might have
to be made. Initially, the ministry advised us that it was
contrary to policy to provide refunds, even if residents had in
fact been overcharged and the ministry had received money it was
not entitled to. Refunds would only be offered if it could be
proved that ministry staff had made an error, the onus of proof
appearing to be on the resident.
Part of the reason for this
surprising position was that in recent years, the ministry had
worked to advise health regions, care facilities and residents
about the fee setting process and had tried to correct any
errors that came to light. They had also changed to a more
accurate method for determining income.
However, while these efforts by
the ministry may have corrected a number of errors, their
success depended on communication between care facility staff
and residents. Many elderly residents were not capable of
dealing with these issues themselves and not all of the problems
were identified and corrected.
Eventually, the ministry agreed
that refunds should be issued to the two families. One family
received $22,117, the other $18,484.
Ministry Replaces
Wheelchair
Ministry of Social
Development and Economic Security
1999 Annual Report
The Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security (MSDES)
denied Ms. C’s application for a new manual wheelchair for her
husband. He had been confined to a wheelchair for 22 years.
The Health Services Branch of MSDES expects clients to save
for future expenses, including repairs and replacement
equipment. In the past, the Ministry had purchased a wheelchair
and scooter for Ms. C’s husband, and had paid for various
repairs. Ms. C appealed the denial to a BC Benefits tribunal. To
eliminate any doubt about the condition of the ten year-old
wheelchair, she took it to the tribunal hearing.
Her appeal was successful, but she was troubled to learn that
the Ministry then had a further 30 working days to consider
whether to appeal the decision to the BC Benefits Appeal Board.
The Ministry advised us that a decision had been made to
accept the tribunal decision and a wheelchair was purchased for
Ms. C’s husband.
Funds Returned
Ministry of Social
Development and Economic Security
1999 Annual Report
Ms. T’s Seniors Supplement payments were suspended for several
months to recover an overpayment that had been made to her
deceased husband. She did not receive a clear explanation of how
the debt had arisen or why she was responsible, rather than her
husband’s estate.
Provincial Seniors Supplement
payments are generated automatically whenever a person’s monthly
income from the federal Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income
Supplement (GIS) programs falls below a set minimum. The
overpayment to Ms. T’s husband had arisen from a retroactive GIS
payment – something for which neither Ms. T nor her husband was
responsible.
We questioned whether the
Seniors Supplement program could properly collect a debt from a
surviving spouse, rather than from the deceased’s estate. The
Program Manager conceded that the correct method was to make a
claim against the estate, and new policy was drafted to ensure
that this would occur in the future.
Ms. T’s supplement was restored,
and she was paid the amount that had been withheld. She also
received a letter of apology. Because of the error and
inconvenience, the Seniors Supplement program also declined to
make a claim against the estate.
Ambulance Service
Apologizes
Emergency Services
Commission
1999 Annual Report
Ms. R was a widow whose husband had recently died of cancer.
During his illness, he had episodes of severe pain. On one such
occasion, Ms. R called an ambulance to take him to hospital.
When the ambulance attendants
arrived, Mr. R was lying in bed in a basement room reached by a
narrow corridor. The attendants told Ms. R that, because of the
narrowness of the corridor and tight corners, they could not
bring a stretcher into the room. Ms. R believed that it was
possible to bring a stretcher into the room, but could not
convince the attendants of this. They carried him out in their
arms and transferred him to a stretcher where there was more
space. Because any physical contact was excruciatingly painful
for Mr. R, the process of carrying him out was highly
distressing for him and Ms. R.
After Mr. R died, Ms. R made a
complaint to the Ambulance Service. She was not satisfied with
the response she initially received, so she made a complaint to
us. We contacted the Ambulance Service and were impressed with
the response that her complaint then received.
A manager went to Ms. R’s home
and looked at the corridor and room in question. He confirmed
her view that it should have been possible to bring in a
stretcher. He also apologized for the pain and distress that she
and her husband had experienced, and told her that he would
follow up on the concern with further training for his staff.
Estate Dispute Settled
Educational
Institution
1999 Annual Report
Mr. W’s late wife had
been employed by an educational institution and she had named
him the beneficiary of her pension in the event of her death.
When she died, Mr. W received monies payable under the plan.
Later, plan administrators determined that supplemental pension
benefits should also be paid. Instead of paying those additional
monies to Mr. W, the named beneficiary, the pension plan paid
them to his wife’s estate.
When Mr. W asked the institution
to correct the error, his request was denied. The pension plan
had received legal advice that supported its action, and the
monies had already been paid.
During our investigation, we
learned that the pension plan’s position rested upon a mistaken
belief. It incorrectly believed that Mr. W had benefited from
the supplemental benefits paid to the deceased’s estate. It also
argued that Mr. W was not entitled to pursue the matter because
he had signed a release with respect to his wife’s estate.
Mr. W proved that he had not
benefited from the supplemental monies paid in error to his
wife’s estate. Additionally, he showed that the release was
signed to settle litigation initiated by his children after his
wife’s death.
The institution acknowledged the
error and paid Mr. W the monies originally owed to him, plus
interest. |
