This section of the website contains material regarding some of the complaints that have been made against IBM and the Trustees.

A summary is available here.

Complaints follow a well defined process - for more information about this, please see The Complaints Process.

A number of complaints are currently in process. These are:

AuthorThemeStage reached
Mike Cawleyan appeal to the consciences of those responsible with Ombusdman since August 2000
Alan Murphythat the Trustees supplied too little information regarding their intentionscompleted IDRP-2 (May), now with Ombudsman
Dave Mitchell that the transfers were illegal completed IDRP Stage 2 (May), now with Ombudsman
Brian Marks that the trustees were working to a wrong principlecompleted IDRP Stage 2 (June), now with Ombudsman
We know of a fifth complaint that is now under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. This concerns a potential retiree claiming he was misled when Havant closed. Since this complaint is less general than the others, the text is not available on this website.

Documents Available

The following documents are available - please note that some of them are quite large and you may find it more convenient to print down or save and read offline.

The earliest complaint, by Mike Cawley, is not available. To get that one you need to have a complaint of your own in mind. You may then ask OPAS for a copy so that you can judge whether your complaint is subsumed by Mike's.

Please note that these documents are not meant to be documents written by lawyers, they are the complainants' own words (after some review with peers). They are meant to fully show the nature of the complaint but they are not limiting on the Ombudsman who has further investigative powers available.

What Happens Next

The Independent Dispute Resolution Process (IDRP) on two of the complaints has completed. Assuming the IBM Trust response is that everything was done as it should be and in accordance with the deeds (the expected response) then the complaints will go to the Ombudsman. On average, complaints wait four months before being investigated and then there is seven months before an outcome. The Mike Cawley complaint has been in the office since August 2000. However, IBM is probably not a typical case.

Both Dave Mitchell and Brian Marks have requested that, since their complaints are at the same stage and are complementary (which OPAS agrees), they should be investigated together. Arguably it is perverse to disconnect them, akin to trying a suspect once on the forensic evidence and then again on the circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, it is procedurally simpler to take things serially and the Ombudsman's Office is leaning towards doing that.

We don't really know what the practical implications of disconnecting the Marks and other complaints will be. As far as we know, none of the other complainants have asked for joint consideration, so it does appear that the Ombudsman's Office will choose to process those separately after his decision on the Mitchell/Cawley (& possibly Marks) complaints.

While the complaints are with the Ombudsman the news about them will be slim. Information received by complainants during that time will be confidential and so will not be published here.

The Ombudsman's determination is not confidential and when available this will be published here. The Ombudsman may also publish his determination or a report of it.

Back to: Homepage