I first wrote to you first on 14th September last seeking clarification as to your Institutute´s alleged comments re your proposal for UK pensions - as quoted on the BBC web site on 14th September last. I further sought your Institute´s clarification as to how, if at all, you had considered the implications for pensioners who reside outside of the U.K. but within an E.U. country.

 

You may recall you took deep offence at my email, which incidentally has now been read by many contacts/friends of mine, non of whom feel it was, as you suggest, rude. In fact, quite the contrary, most thought your reply to me to be much more offensive.

I immediately replied apologising for the contents of my email which you found it offensive, as that was never my intention. I have since written 2 more emails to you (dated 22nd Sept and 26th Sept respectively) but note that you have not had the decency to reply to either to date. You appear to be unable to differentiate between emails written to you personally as opposed to those written to you as the Director of the Institute - as ALL mine were. 

 

I specifically asked you to confirm where I could have access to your "report" in which you claim to have given due consideration to the "freedom of movement". I have searched your web site and can only find the 62 page report "A guide to State Pension reform" dated July 2003. In that document I could find no reference whatsoever to "freedom of movement". I must presume therefore that either there is another report, which you so far have refused to give me access to, or you have not considered the "freedom of movement" at all. If the former is the case then I find that particularly annoying as in your singular email to me you said "... However, as you will see when you give more than a brief read to the full report we are working on, we have fully considered the issue of freedom of movement..." How exactly do I read your comments on "the freedom of movement" if you persist in adopting such an intransigent stance? Also the comment "..the full report we are working on.." suggests there is indeed a further report to the one, dated July 2003, referred to above. I again ask, if such a report exists, please can I have access to it. Exactly what is the point in your asking me to read your report and then denying me access to it?   

 

I have gone to the trouble of furnishing you with the appropriate E.U. Law (article 10) which prohibits the discrimination of pensions on the grounds that the individual resides in another E.U. country, other than the one from where the pension is paid. I would have at least expected a thanks from you for my making that effort. Many people, perhaps yourself and your Institute included, remain totally oblivious to the fact that the E.U. has laws and regulations protecting pension payments for ExPats - hence the reason for my making the effort. It would seem unfortunate, in the extreme, if your Institute published a report which contained illegalities merely because you were unaware of European Law on pension provision.

 

Ms O´Connell perhaps you thought that your persistent refusal to communicate, which is of course in direct contravention of your Institute´s own aims and objectives, would see our Association disappear from your Office. I write to advise that far from that, being the case, I intend to put all our correspondence on our web site and additional recommend you for our "Hall of Shame" on the grounds that you currently appear unfit to hold the position of Director, when you demonstrably contravene your Institute´s own aims and objectives by blatantly refusing to co-operate with bodies who have a very serious role to play in this important area. Pension provision is not just for the privileged who enjoy occupational pensions. Rather it should be seen as a mechanism to prevent poverty in the elderly populous. That is all we seek and will continue to do so with or without your Institutes involvement.

 

In the interest of fairness I shall give you ten days, from the date of this email, for you to reconsider your current stance, before any further action is taken. I do sincerely hope you take this opportunity to enter fruitful discussion with ourselves. If you find correspondence with myself to be a specific problem, then I am quite happy to talk to or email another senior Officer you nominate, or alternatively you can communicate directly with my co-founder Mr David R Burrage rather than myself, should you so choose. 

I feel I have now exhausted my options and so I leave the ball in your Court. Are you going to return it or put it in your pocket and go home? The choice is yours.

 

Regards

 

Peter Woodall