SUBMISSIONS FROM MR HARRY COHEN TO SIR
PAUL KENNEDY,
Appendix III
(I) SUBMISSION BY MR HARRY COHEN
15TH DECEMBER 2010
1. I have noted your terms of reference, and
the fact that you have been asked to conduct an independent review
of the conclusion of the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards
and Privileges, that my breach of the rules for claiming Parliamentary
allowances, in treating my Colchester home as my main home, was
a "particularly serious one". I note that you are also
asked to provide advice to the Committee upon the appropriateness
of the recommendations made, upon the apology made to the House
of Commons and the withholding of the resettlement grant that
would otherwise have been payable to me.
2. A focus of your view will no doubt be upon
the effect of the telephone attendance note of 27.3.2009 and the
letter of 13 July 2010 from the Clerk and Chief Executive of the
House, Dr Malcolm Jack, which followed its discovery. However,
the terms of reference do not limit you to considering the impact
of this attendance note only, and I would ask you to consider,
in full, all the issues raised by the conclusions of the Seventh
Report.
3. Outcome of Police Investigation. First,
I would like you to note that on 20 May 2010, the police concluded
their investigations into the allegation that is currently under
review, with a decision that no further action was to be taken
(copy enclosed). I appreciate that this may not be directly relevant
to your review of the Committee's deliberations, but it forms
part of the back-drop and it is important to note there were no
criminal offences committed by me.
4. The relevant context. It may be
useful if I identify those parts of the Committee's report of
19 January 2010 which may be of central relevance to the new material
now being considered.
5. The Green Book. From July 2003-2009,
the Green Book has advised Members that the identification of
a main home would normally be a matter of fact. Where a Member
had more than one home, the main home was normally where a Member
spent most nights. "The Commissioner notes—as Mr Cohen
has pointed out and as this Committee has previously accepted
that the term "normally" implies that there may be exceptions."
(Report paragraph 5).
6. The Committee's Comments. It also seems
appropriate to note the Committee's view in its fifteenth report
in session 2007-8 The Green Book states that the location of
a Member's main home is normally a matter of fact. The Green Book
implicitly recognises that there may be circumstances where this
simple objective test may not be the right one to apply, and we
agree with the Commissioner that, in cases of doubt, it is
reasonable to take account of a much wider range of factors. In
such cases, the Commissioner suggests that the Member's decision
should reflect their particular circumstances.
7. Letter of 14 July 2009 from the Director
of Strategic Projects, Department of Resources: "Mr Cohen
is a frequent visitor to the Department of Resources where he
discusses many aspects of his allowances with a variety of staff,
mainly those in the Enquiry & Advice Team (EAT). Staff have
been asked if they recall any conversations about Mr Cohen's altered
arrangements and the rental of his Colchester home; none of them
recall any such discussion. We have no written correspondence...."
8. Letter of 22 July 2009: "I confirm
that it is the Department's view that there is a presumption that
having the ability to occupy a main ... home is an essential element
of it being a main .... home (save possibly in circumstances such
as the impossibility of occupation by reason or flood or fire...)".
9. Letter of 24 September 2009: "While
there is no record of this [conversation of April 2008] or any
other conversation with Mr Cohen on renting out the main home,
it is conceivable that a Member might well have been advised that
there was no rule which prevented him or her from renting out
their main home on a temporary basis. But I remain of the view
that no-one in the Department would have thought it right to have
advised Mr Cohen that it was appropriate for him to designate
as his main home a residence that he had no right to occupy for
any period other than a strictly temporary one."
10. You will also note the previous evidence
which I have provided about conversations with the Fees Office,
eg Report page 18, paragraph 25 (Memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards):—
"Mr Cohen said that he had notified the Fees
Office about his housing arrangements. ... "In fact, in 2008
on the last occasion when it was agreed that I was not outside
the rules, because my circumstances were not normal, it was only
then recommended that I end occasional renting because public
perceptions had changed. I immediately acted on that advice."
He believed he had notified the Fees Office of the renting
of his Colchester property on "three or four occasions....
and it was always accepted verbally. I was never asked to put
it in writing, and that was not deemed a necessity in those days.
I gave notification when the initial rental was done at the same
time as I registered the interest. Other verbal notifications
would have been during some of my not infrequent sojourns to the
Fees Office to discuss matters of (then) greater crisis. However,
the discussions would have been in the context of my circumstances
not being normal....." (emphasis added).
11. See, to substantially the same effect, my
evidence summarised at paragraphs 72-73 of the Memorandum from
the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Appendix1, (page 32),
paragraph 76 (p33), paragraph 90, first sentence (p37), paragraph
109 (p42), paragraph 115 (p44).
12. With regard to the Department of Resources'
advice to myself, the Commissioner concluded, after summarising
the differing evidence of what had or might have occurred (p56,
paragraph 164):—
" ... It is not possible at this remove, and
in the absence of documentary evidence, definitively to resolve
this difference of recollection. I think it possible, on the balance
of probabilities, that Mr Cohen may have made some mention to
the House authorities about letting out his Colchester home. The
fact that he registered the property in the Register of Members'
Interests in 2001 and again made a partial registration from 2005
to 2008 suggests that he was not attempting to disguise the arrangement.
I am more doubtful whether any mention he made of these arrangements
to the Department of Resources was sufficiently full or clear
for the Department to have given considered advice. Whatever may
have been their attitude at the time to temporary letting arrangements,
Mr Cohen's arrangements were manifestly not temporary. There is
not therefore sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the
Department gave Mr Cohen flawed advice and I think it unlikely
that it did so. In any event, Members must be personally responsible
for their actions under the Rules ...."
13. The Commissioner found, and the Committee
agreed (paragraph 16) that from April 2004 to August 2008, Mr
Cohen's home in Colchester could not be regarded as his home for
the purposes of claiming Parliamentary allowances". This
refers to my constituency home. The Committee went on to state
that "The Commissioner and the Department of Resources are
right, in our judgment, to take the view that a property which
for long periods is wholly inaccessible to the Member cannot be
a designated home for the purpose of claiming Additional Costs
Allowance." The Committee did not accept (paragraph 18) that
the Rules were being applied retrospectively and observed that
"Mr Cohen might have gained a clearer understanding of the
Rules if he had provided the House authorities with fuller information
about his arrangements."
14. The telephone attendance note of 27.3.2009.
Turning to the note of 27.3.2009, I would make the following points:
This note is of a conversation which is one of a
number of conversations I had with the Fees Office in early 2009.
Now, almost two years later, I do not have a detailed memory of
these conversations, but I was actively seeking further information
and guidance about my ACA claim at a time when I had already ended
the temporary lets of our Colchester house (from August 2008).
I had also met with the Registrar to make more accurate the Register
of Members' Interests entry. Both of these events happened well
before the complaint made against me. At the same time, there
was also further interest in my claims from a journalist on a
national newspaper. This was the first intimation I had that my
main home was being questioned. That interest led ultimately to
the newspaper reports of 29 March 2009 and subsequent ones.
15. The note is, of course, rather ambiguous
or muddled in recording "Harry has a second home and a main
home. He rents out some his main home. Does that break
the rules?" However, I can confirm that when making this
enquiry, I was asking about renting out the main home "sometimes"
or for "some period of time". I would not have asked
questions about renting out "some of" my main home;
that has never been an option and is simply irrelevant to my situation.
(It would be practically impossible. The Colchester house is a
converted Dame School, with one large main living room, a ground
floor bedroom and a mezzanine bedroom above; it would not be feasible
to separate off a part of the house to let, and it would never
have occurred to us to attempt it—the house was our private
home). So the answer must have related to the factual scenario
of renting out a main home at times, or "sometimes".
I appreciate that the note is an imperfect record of the conversation
that must have taken place, but it was not, of course, sent to
me to check.
16. If there is any doubt about this note, I
would ask for an oral hearing so that I can respond further to
any questions which you may have about it. However, I would point
out that my word and good faith have never, in the course of this
investigation, been doubted.
17. In any event, it is the response from the
EAT which is significant—significant whatever interpretation
is adopted of the query to which the response was given, I would
suggest. The answer was that: "He is not claiming allowances
on his main home. He claims them on his second home. What he
does with his main home has nothing to do with the allowances
or the department." (emphasis added).
18. I have always maintained that I kept the
Fees Office informed throughout of my circumstances, and the rental
agreements made in respect of my Colchester home. I have told
the Committee and Commissioner that throughout the period from
2002 onwards, I was regularly in touch with the staff at the Fees
Office. See the references to my previous evidence, paragraphs
9 and 10 above. When I attended, I was open about the situation
caused by my wife's sequential and unpredictable bouts of ill-health
and that this had led us to rent out the Colchester house. There
were no concerns expressed about this information—it was
never suggested that this raised concerns or needed further investigation.
19. Although the Department has accepted that
I was a frequent attendee at the Department of Resources, and
frequently sought advice from the Enquiry and Advice Team (EAT),
it has maintained that no one from the Office would have advised
me that it was appropriate for me to treat as a main home, a place
that I had no right to occupy "for any period other than
a strictly temporary one." (letter of 24.9.2009, paragraph
9 above).
20. But the attendance note of 27.3.2009 is an
EAT record, and it supports the evidence that, as I have previously
told the Committee, I was given to understand that the arrangements
which I had made were acceptable ones at the time, and required
no further explanation or investigation. If as late as March 2009,
a member of the fees office staff could say that "He is not
claiming allowances on his main home. He claims them on his second
home. What he does with his main home has nothing to do with
the allowances or the department," it is surely even
more likely that a similar, if not greater, lack of interest would
have been shown in information about lets of that house, when
raised from 2003 onwards. There is no suggestion in the March
2009 memo that a decision to let out the "main home"
means that a member must reconsider whether the house is genuinely
his (or her) main home. The attitude is that since no public money
is being claimed in respect of that home, no questions need be
asked. In my view, this throws the reliability or certainty of
the views expressed by the Director of Strategic Projects in (eg)
the letter of 24 September 2009 into serious doubt. The views
about what staff "would have" said had never been based
on any real evidence as to what staff actually said; they
have always represented an account of what it was thought staff
ought to have said. The March 2009 note shows that this is very
unreliable way of judging past conversations. I would urge you
to accept my own recollection of the conversations which I had
with staff, instead. The confirmation of my meeting with Andy
Gibson, initially denied by the Director, and the EAT attendance
note, does not fit with what the Director maintained.
21. In addition, the note is also consistent
with the evidence which I have already given the Commissioner
and Committee, that when I asked Andy Gibson for advice in April
2008, I was advised to end the practice of renting out the Colchester
home not because it was wrong or contrary to the rules, but because
"public perception was changing". There was no suggestion
that the past claims had been wrong or that I should not have
made them. That this meeting could have taken place was initially
denied by the Director in his evidence but had to be confirmed
by him later after checking with Andy Gibson.
22. Overall, I would suggest that the conclusions
of the Commissioner about the advice offered (or the lack of concerns
or queries raised) by the Department of Resources, set out in
paragraph 164 of the Memorandum, require reconsideration in the
light of the note of March 2009. I would urge you to accept the
account that I have given of my dealings with the EAT, instead.
23. If the attitude of the staff of the Fees
Office was that "What he does with his main home has nothing
to do with the allowances or the department", this helps
to explain why no concerns were raised at the time. This in turn
directly helps to explain why I did not appreciate the need—which
the Committee has found to have existed -to review my arrangements
in more detail, or to stop letting out my Colchester house at
an earlier date. It is apparent that when given advice (eg in
April 2008, or upon the Register of Members' Interests), I acted
on it immediately. If concerns had been raised at an earlier date,
I would have done the same then, and this situation would have
been avoided.
24. The relevance of incomplete or flawed
advice or information from the Fees Office. In making these
points about the advice I received, or the EAT's failure to raise
queries about the situation I discussed with them, I do recognise
that the Committee's approach to allowances' claims has always
been that the ultimate responsibility for a claim made lies with
the Member of Parliament concerned. I fully accept this and am
not seeking to avoid that responsibility, although I am perplexed
at how one can be perceived to be within the rules, with no advice
contrary upon consultation, but then it be, retrospectively, determined
not to be so. However, the input of the Fees Office—its
failure to query my arrangements or to raise concerns with me—does
help to explain the prevailing understanding of the rules at the
time. My own, I believe understandable error to handle the matter
differently is more excusable, I suggest, against that background.
25. In the circumstances, I would urge you to
reconsider the judgement that it represented a "particularly
serious breach" of the rules.
26. Temporary arrangements. The previous
decision of the Committee and the Commissioner were based on the
judgment that by April 2004 I should have recognised that the
letting of the Colchester house was no longer a temporary situation.
27. It has however been recognised by both that
this was not a case in which I reviewed the situation in which
my wife and I were in, and took a knowing or even reckless decision
not to comply with the letter or the spirit of the rules. It was
found, rather, that my error lay in failing to carry out a sufficiently
thorough and objective assessment of my family situation. According
to the previous report, had I done this I would have recognised
that what was "exceptional" had become normal, and that
we were no longer, and could not expect to be, based in Colchester
(eg, Memorandum paragraph 161).
28. When looking at the issue of whether the
breach of the rules was "particularly serious", I would
urge you to assess my actions or decisions, and the seriousness
of any mistakes made, without the benefit of hindsight. It is,
perhaps, easy to see that when the period from 2003-August 2008
is considered as a whole, retrospectively, we were unable to spend
significant amounts of time in our Colchester house. However,
this is not how it appeared at the time, when it was hoped and
expected that each 6 month let would be the last. I have previously
made the point that my wife's health was not subject to any kind
of steady deterioration, but to a series of unexpected crises
that would have been impossible to predict. We thought that every
crisis was the last one. When the hope that each recovery would
be permanent together with the stresses caused by my wife's further
unforeseen medical problems, plus demanding parliamentary duties,
as well as the factors about the attitude of the EAT discussed
above, I do feel that the judgment that the breach was "particularly
serious breach" is unduly harsh and disproportionate. It
gives no real weight to the circumstances which applied at the
time, and which are extenuating ones.
29. Response of the Department to the discovery
of the attendance note (Dr Jack's letter of 13 July 2010).
I am grateful for the acknowledgment that the search of the Enquiries
and Advice Team (EAT) database was not thorough enough, and that
this relevant record should have been found and passed to the
Commissioner. I am grateful for the apology for this omission
offered in this letter (copy enclosed). Nevertheless, I find it
hard to understand how such a plainly relevant record was not
found or overlooked, and that it should have taken a police investigation
for it to be produced (my letter of 4 June 2010 refers). The fact
that this has led to a prolonging of the distress and stress caused
by this whole matter should also, I would suggest, be taken into
account by you in your review of any appropriate penalty.
30. More generally, I have already paid a very
high price for any errors in my handling of ACA claims. Before
this story broke in March 2009, I had been reselected unopposed
as the Labour Party candidate for the next election. The adverse
publicity created—in part by completely misleading stories,
such as the suggestions that I had claimed the second homes allowance
for a caravan or had declared the caravan as my main home as well
as being informed from within the Commissioner's office that
my request for the complaint to be dismissed was not agreed but
matters about which the Commissioner remained concerned would
be raised. I was politically in a very difficult if not impossible
position that meant that I had to consider urgently whether or
not to not contest the general election. I took the decision that
I could not ask my party to fight the general election with a
candidate who would be associated with any scandal about election
expenses. I therefore stood down in the summer, 2009, although
it had been my firm intention to seek to serve for this forthcoming
Parliamentary term. The decision had to be made early due to the
proximity of the general election (which could have been earlier
than it actually was) because a General Election could have been
called at any time and the need for any new candidate to become
known locally. It was only after the general election that the
police concluded their investigation. Effectively, I have lost
my job, at least five years earlier than I would otherwise have
hoped. It was certainly not a dignified or decent end to twenty
seven years as an M.P. and at a personal level both myself and
my wife has suffered abuse from the public. My good name and reputation
is I believe irrevocably damaged after a lifetime of public service.
31. Accrual of Resettlement Grant. I recognise
the power of the Committee to determine that a resettlement grant
not be paid, and the fact that the Committee's recommendations
of January 2010 were based upon a desire to ensure that the public
purse received back a sum roughly equivalent to the monies which
it was judged had been inappropriately claimed. Nevertheless,
I would ask you to take into consideration the fact that the entitlement
to the resettlement grant which I would otherwise have received,
accrued over a long period of time. The grant is akin to a redundancy
payment. I was a Member of Parliament for 27 years before I retired,
and the right to the grant accrued over that period as a whole.
I have been judged to have made serious errors in the claims made
recently, over a 4 year period. I do not seek to minimise the
importance of those findings, although as can be seen from this
submission I believe that verdict should be revised, but I would
ask that the Committee balance that period against the longer
period of service which I have given, and which is reflected in
the resettlement grant at stake.
32. Pension Entitlement. There have been
further losses to my wife and myself. In addition to the loss
of my job at least 5 years earlier than I had hoped, and substantial
legal fees incurred (e.g. in connection with the police investigation
which resulted from the Commissioner's and Committee's report),
I have suffered a loss of pension rights. I enclose correspondence
relating to this matter. You will see that on 9 December 2005,
I was specifically told that I would reach my maximum pension
on 5 October 2009. It was not until February 2010 that I was told
that this was not correct, and on 12 March 2010 I was told that
if I wanted to receive the full pension, I would need to pay £5,214.03
(£3128.42 net of tax relief) into the pension fund before
the General Election. Against the background of the withholding
of my resettlement grant, which I would otherwise have received
after the election, and the ongoing legal costs which I continue
to incur, to fight my case since the police investigation commencement,
I was simply not in a position to pay this money. I have therefore
lost my entitlement to receive an additional £10/week (index
linked), for life, and my wife, should I die first, to more than
half of that additional sum, as a consequence of the decision
about the resettlement grant.
33. I received an apology from the Trustees on
27 October 2010, but of course that does not reinstate the 'lost'
payments.
34. Conclusions. The Committee
has previously accepted that I acted in good faith at all times,
and that I never sought to conceal the lets of the Colchester
house. In summary, my continued designation of that house as my
"main home" was based on my and my wife's attachment
to, and links with, the house and the area, coupled with our belief
that our inability to live in the house 'full-time' was a temporary
expedient as a result of my wife's ill-health It, as our "main
home" was, for us, a matter of fact. My belief that the arrangements
were fully in order was supported by the conversations which I
had with the Fees Office. It has always been accepted that "it
is conceivable that a Member might well have been advised that
there was no rule which prevented him or her from renting out
on a temporary basis". The note of 27.3.2009 demonstrates
that it is not merely "conceivable" but highly probable
that advice was actually given, but there was a more general attitude
that the use made of the main home was not a concern for the Fees
Office since no claims for public funds were being made against
it. Furthermore, this attitude was a material factor in the situation
which developed. My errors in failing to give further consideration
to the situation caused by my wife's ill-health have now to be
seen in that light (as well as in the light of the other stresses
on me caused by my wife's ill-health, in particular).
35. That said, I recognise that a Member is ultimately
responsible for the claims made. I have already made a full apology
to the House, as recommended by the Committee. But in assessing
culpability, that responsibility has to be balanced against all
the 'mitigating' factors which I have tried to set out above.
36. In all the circumstances, I would suggest,
first, that the circumstances enable you to reassess the judgment
formed on the severity of the breach. It was completely inadvertent,
and it cannot properly be characterised as "particularly
serious" one.
37. Second, given all the circumstances discussed
above, I would respectfully suggest that the sanctions applied,
and in particular, the withholding of my resettlement grant in
full, was unduly harsh and disproportionate. I would suggest that
the desire to ensure that the public purse does not suffer as
a result of any errors should be balanced against all the extenuating
factors I have tried to set out above, including the fact that
I have always acted honestly and in good faith. The fact that
my entitlement to the resettlement grant has accrued over 27 years,
and that I lost any prospect of re-election as a result of this
affair is also highly material. I have also pointed out that another
error of the House's authorities, this time about my pension rights,
has recently cost me dear.
38. In the light of all the matters I have mentioned,
I would urge you to follow any reassessment of the circumstances
of this matter by concluding that the recommendation to withhold
the resettlement in grant in full, was too severe. I would ask
you to reinstate it in its entirety; or, failing that, to recommend
that a substantial proportion be restored to me.
39. May I also request that you affirm that I
acted in good faith so that I may regain some of the respect which
I have lost due to this case, a loss I feel particularly keenly
and that what I thought (and indeed what the Fees Office staff
thought) was proper, throughout, in all the circumstances.
Encs.
1. Met Police 20th
May 2010
2. Pension correspondence—
9th Dec 2005
12th March 2010
4th May 2010
15th June 2010
24th June 2010
Letter from [***], Detective Superintendent,
Specialist Crime Directorate, Metropolitan Police to Mr Harry
Cohen, 20 May 2010
As you are aware the Metropolitan Police Service
requested copies of the expense claims submitted by you to the
House of Commons in order that allegations of inappropriate claims
relating to ACA allowances could be investigated.
Further to the verbal notification via your solicitor
[***], this letter is to inform you that this police investigation
has concluded.
This outcome only relates to the specific allegations
that you inappropriately c1aimed allowances for your constituency
address when you were unable to occupy your primary residence,
as it was occupied by a third party.
If new information comes to light or if further allegations
are made then I will be duty bound to consider them.
Letter from [***], Head of Pensions, The
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund to Mr Harry Cohen, 9 December
2005
The Parliamentary Contributorv Pension Fund (PCPF)
Transfer of Pension Benefits—Local Government
Pension Scheme
I write to confirm that you have been credited with
6 years 18 days service in the PCPF, and a cheque for £81,004.57
has been received from Haringey Council.
This will be minuted at the next meeting of the Trustees
of the PCPF. You purchased this service at a 50ths-accrual rate.
Any subsequent changes to the scheme accrual rate may result in
a subsequent change to the number of years and/or days that you
have been credited. Any such change would not alter the monetary
worth of your pension.
You should also note that current scheme regulations
do not utilise transferred-in service for the purposes of an 'abated'
(reduced) pension. It is only actual service in the basic parliamentary
scheme that counts in this case.
As a serving member it has been calculated that you
will reach the maximum pension limit of 2/3rds final salary on
05 October 2009 and will cease to make payments into the PCPF
as from 06 October 2009.
Appropriate steps will be taken nearer this date
to cease deductions from your salary in respect of your basic
scheme service and you will be informed by letter nearer the time.
You may telephone me on 0207 219 [***] if you would
like to discuss any aspect of your pension with me.
Letter from [***], Pension Officer, Parliamentary
Contributory Pension Fund to Mr Harry Cohen, 12 March 2010
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF)
Change of Pension Build Up Rate
Thank you for your phone call earlier this week.
I have now spoken to [***], Head of Pensions, and
confirm that if you decide to switch to 1/40ths pension build
up rate, you will have to pay £5,214.03 gross (£3128.42
net assuming tax relief at 40%) owing to the PCPF, before you
cease to serve as an MP, at the General Election. If you elect
to switch, but do not pay the arrears owed, we would not be in
a position to start payment of your pension until this money was
paid.
If you decide you want to switch your pension build
up rate in March, I would need you to complete and return the
attached Switching Form by Monday 15 March. You can then repay
the entire gross amount by cheque, making the cheques payable
to the Trustees of the PCPF'. You will then be able to claim tax
relief from HRMC when you complete your tax return.
If you have any questions about this letter or your
PCPF pension please contact me.
Letter from Mr Harry Cohen to [***], Pensions
Unit, Department of Resources, House of Commons, 4 May 2010
I appreciated the recent meeting with yourself and
[***]. After his comments, as you know I do not intend to take
my complaint any further.
However, in clearing my manual files I came across
this letter from [***] (copy enclosed), then Head of Pensions,
dated 9 December 2005.
You will note the fourth paragraph "As a serving
member it has been calculated that you will reach the maximum
pension limit of 2/3rds final salary on 5 October 2009 and will
cease to make payments into the PCPF as from 6 October 2009."
Please will you tell me when that situation changed
and for what reason(s).
Also, my file record shows that it was thought that
my transfer from Haringey into the PCPF would be about 7 years.
The actual transfer of 6 years 18 days was well short of that.
Also, my record shows that I was eligible to receive the Haringey
pension at age 60, not 65. I wonder if this was taken into account
in the transfer calculation. These factors make me wonder if the
transfer-in calculation was correct. Do you, or [***], have any
comment on that.
Letter from [***], Pensions Unit, Department
of Resources, House of Commons to Mr Harry Cohen, 15 June 2010
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
Further to my letter dated 27 May 2010, I have now
received your file from rpmi.
Unfortunately there are no calculations to back up
the data in [***]'s letter dated 9 December 2005 regarding the
date at which you would reach your 2/3rds limit. As such I can
only assume that this was a typing error. I am sorry for any inconvenience
the incorrect information has caused you.
With regards to your transfer from Haringey, I confirm
that the retirement age under the Haringey County Council pension
scheme would have been taken into consideration by them when calculating
the transfer value. Previous correspondence on your file confirms
that you were originally advised that you would receive 6 years
and 18 days service for transferring your pension, copies of correspondence
are enclosed.
Letter from Mr Harry Cohen to the Chairman,
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, House of Commons, 24
June 2010
I enclose, for your perusal, self-explanatory recent
correspondence regarding my Parliamentary pension.
Having worked 27 years as an MP and adding my previous
employment pension monies, I expected to be able to retire on
the full pension from the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
like so many other MPs in a similar position. I draw your attention,
specifically, to the 9 December 2005 letter to me from [***],
then Head of Pensions. It indicated that I would reach the maximum
pension limit on 5 October 2009.
Only in February of this year was any written indication
given that this was not, apparently, the case and a large sum
of money would have to be paid by me to achieve the full pension.
I was not in a position to pay this large sum at such short notice.
Email and written correspondence failed to elicit
a written apology for what I consider a poor level of service
in failing to communicate vitally important information to me
in reasonable time. Email correspondence of mine received an
inaccurate response that not only had no idea of the substance
of [***]'s letter, but also of the effect of the transfer across.
When I personally visited the Pensions Department (to ensure that
I received my pension, which was actually being threatened to
be paid on time, because I had complained) I did elicit an apology
of sorts to my face. At the time it I felt begrudging, but (despite
losing the equivalent of £10 a week for the rest of my life)
I accepted it rather than take the matter to The Pensions Regulator
(Ombudsman) which I had in mind to do.
You will now note from the latest correspondence,
that [***]'s letter is "assumed" to be a "typing
error". I do not believe or accept that at all.
It adds to my belief that the apology was begrudging
and not a proper one. Even in this latest letter, I have suffered
more than "inconvenience" due to so-called "incorrect
information".
I want to bring this matter to a conclusion. I could
still take the matter to the pensions ombudsman and I actually
think it would be reasonable to call upon your Committee to grant
me some form of compensation, perhaps an ex gratia payment toward
the loss.
However, as stated before, I will accept a proper,
full, unmodified, genuine apology. Please place this matter before
your Fund Committee. I want that genuine, unequivocal apology
and I want it to see it in the minutes of your Committee. If that
does not happen I will refer this matter to the pensions ombudsman
to try to get the matter finished properly.
Please do the decent thing as requested.
| 
