Were you Mis-Sold a Pension BAE Systems?

Have you been mis-sold a pension by BAE Systems? It’s thought that about one-third of UK pensions might have been wrongly sold. See if you qualify, and our Pension Experts team could help you get back as much as £350,000.

Prefer to speak to someone? Call us

0800 900 1000

Home » Mis-sold pension claims » BAE Systems
Contact us about your claim

Have BAE Systems mis-sold me my pension?

Should you harbour concerns that your BAE Systems pension scheme was inaccurately sold to you via misleading or incorrect information, it’s crucial to investigate your eligibility for compensation.

Mis-selling may take several shapes, including the provision of inappropriate advice, undisclosed fees, the application of aggressive sales techniques, or a lack of adequate product details.

To evaluate your circumstances and determine whether you’re entitled to compensation or a refund, we urge you to get in touch with our pension specialists.

Start your claim now
A woman filling out a missold pension claim for her father

Information about BAE Systems

BAE Systems is a British multinational defence, security, and aerospace company. It is one of the world’s largest defence contractors, involved in the development and manufacture of technology for air, land, and sea forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology, and support services.

Pension Schemes

BAE Systems offers pension schemes to its employees as part of their benefits package. These schemes are designed to provide financial security for employees in their retirement years. The company has historically offered both defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) pension plans. The DB scheme promises a specified pension payment upon retirement, calculated based on years of service and salary history, while the DC scheme’s retirement benefit depends on contributions and investment returns.

Contact us to learn how much you can get

Information regarding BAE systems Pension schemes

The BAE Systems Final Salary, also known as a Defined Benefit pension scheme, is closed to new entrants but available to current members at Levels 125, 167, 187, and 200. Employees who joined from 5 April 2003 to 31 March 2012 entered the Level 100+ section.

This scheme provides a pension based on the salary near retirement and contribution years. Individuals transferring out of this scheme risk losing money and benefits, as other pensions may not offer similar guarantees, potentially reducing retirement income.

The lure of high commissions can motivate advisers to mis-sell alternative schemes, targeting holders of these pensions.

Want to make a mis-sold pension claim?

It’s estimated that around a third of UK pensions may have been mis-sold. Check if you’re eligible, and our team of Pension Experts could assist you in reclaiming up to £300,000.

Contact us to learn how much you can get

Recent rulings involving BAE Systems and pensions

CAS-33906 BAE / Mr. I

The document is a decision from the Pensions Ombudsman regarding a complaint by Mr. I against the BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Limited concerning the non-payment of death benefits following his father’s death. Mr. I’s father was a member of the BAE Systems 2000 Pension Plan, which later merged into the BAE Systems Pension Scheme.

At the time of his death, Mr. I’s father had been retired for more than five years and did not leave behind a spouse or civil partner. The complaint centered around a nomination form completed by Mr. I’s father, which Mr. I believed entitled him to a lump sum death benefit.

The Trustees informed Mr. I that no further benefits were payable under the scheme’s rules, which led to Mr. I filing a formal complaint. The complaint was initially not upheld by the Trustees, and upon review, the Adjudicator agreed with the Trustees, stating that benefits could only be paid in accordance with the scheme’s rules.

Specifically, the rules stated that a lump sum death benefit would only be payable if a member died in pensionable service, within five years after starting to receive a pension, or with a preserved pension that had not started. Since Mr. I’s father had been retired for more than five years, no lump sum death benefit was payable.

Mr. I did not accept this opinion and further argued that the acceptance of the nomination form by the Trustees led his father to believe a lump sum benefit would be payable upon his death. He also suggested that the merger of the pension plans might have changed the rules. However, the Ombudsman, Anthony Arter, concluded that the merger did not impact the rules regarding the lump sum payable upon death and that the completion of the nomination form did not automatically entitle Mr. I to a death benefit. The form was relevant only if a death benefit was payable under the scheme’s rules, which was not the case for Mr. I’s father. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not uphold Mr. I’s complaint.

This decision highlights the importance of understanding the specific terms and conditions of pension schemes and the limitations of nomination forms in determining entitlement to benefits.

PO-20758 Aviva / Mr. E

The document is a determination from the Pensions Ombudsman regarding a complaint by Mr. E concerning his allocation to the Airbus Section of the BAE Systems Pension Scheme following its division in 2016. Mr. E argued that this allocation compromised the long-term security of his retirement and widow’s pension. Here are the key points summarized in bullet points:

  • Complaint Overview: Mr. E’s complaint centered on his allocation to the Airbus Section of the BAE Systems Pension Scheme after its division in 2016, fearing it compromised his pension’s long-term security.
  • Background:
    • Mr. E was employed by BAE (and its predecessors) from 1952 to 1996, retiring from a location that later became part of Airbus.
    • Airbus was part of BAE until 2000, and from 2000 to 2007, it was partly owned by BAE. In 2007, Airbus became fully independent but continued to participate in the Scheme.
    • In February 2016, members were informed about the Scheme’s restructuring into two sections: the BAE Systems Section and the Airbus Section, effective April 2016.
  • Allocation to Airbus Section:
    • Mr. E was allocated to the Airbus Section based on his last employment location, which became part of Airbus.
    • He contested this allocation, arguing he had never been employed by Airbus and expressing concerns over Airbus’s financial stability compared to BAE.
  • Scheme’s Response:
    • BAE and the Trustee explained that the allocation was logical and in line with the Scheme’s restructuring methodology.
    • They assured that the sectionalization would not change members’ benefits and that the Scheme’s security was supported by strong funding commitments from both BAE Systems and Airbus.
  • Adjudicator and Ombudsman’s Decision:
    • The Adjudicator concluded that the sectionalization was a valid amendment and that Mr. E’s benefits remained unchanged, thus requiring no action from BAE or the Trustee.
    • The Ombudsman, Anthony Arter, agreed with the Adjudicator’s findings, stating that Mr. E had not suffered any financial loss due to the sectionalization and that concerns about future security were hypothetical.
  • Conclusion:
    • The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr. E’s complaint, finding no evidence of financial loss or maladministration resulting from his allocation to the Airbus Section.

This case highlights the complexities involved in pension scheme restructuring and the challenges in addressing members’ concerns about future security and financial stability of pension benefits.

Want to know how much you
are entitled to?

We Do Any Claim

Mis-sold pension information