Our Housing team are delighted following a formal tender procurement process to have been appointed to three lots under the new multi-million-pound legal services framework for The Riverside Group.
Under certain circumstances, a Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) employer can apply to forfeit the employee’s pension or to recover some or all of their pension benefits. These steps can only be taken if the employee leaves that employment as a result of committing serious misconduct, a negligent act or omission.
As these rights to forfeit or recover benefits are only meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, they are, understandably, subject to strict tests. A recent pension ombudsman decision highlights these limits but is also a useful reminder of the right to recover benefits where appropriate.
The right to recover/forfeit
Under regulation 93 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 (the Regulations), the former employer of a LGPS member can apply to the relevant LGPS Fund to recover or retain money owed in the following circumstances:
- The pension scheme member has committed an act of grave misconduct or a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act, or omission;
- The member has, as a result, left the employment through which they were a member; or
- The member owes money as a result of their misconduct, act or omission to their former scheme employer.
The former LGPS employer can recover that money or, if less, the value of all the employee’s pension benefits (subject to a few exceptions). The employer must give at least three months’ notice of the amount it intends to recover and show how this is calculated
Under regulation 91 of the Regulations, an LGPS member’s former employer can also apply to the Secretary of State for that member’s pension to be forfeited where:
- The member has been convicted of an offence;
- The offence was committed in connection with the employment through which the person is a member of the LGPS;
- The member has left employment because of that offence;
- The offence was “gravely injurious” to the State or is liable to lead a to serious loss of confidence in the public service; and
- Where the former employer suffered loss, it is not able to recover that loss in another way (including under regulation 93), except after an unreasonable delay or at a disproportionate cost.
The application needs to be made within three months of conviction and there are various other formalities that need to be satisfied.
Mr A worked for Enfield Council as the Head of Finance and was a member of the LGPS. On 31 December 2010, Mr A was made redundant due to restructuring in the Council. Following an investigation in 2011, the police discovered that Mr A had fraudulently moved sums of money from the Council’s agency staff provider account into his personal bank account. Between June 2008 and December 2010, he had moved sums totalling £448,207.
The Council petitioned for Mr A’s bankruptcy, and in 2012 he was declared bankrupt. Mr A was also convicted of fraud in July 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment for four years. The Council wrote to Mr A seeking to recover the money owed from Mr A’s pension benefits.
Mr A’s legal representative wrote to the Council in April 2013 arguing that the Council was not entitled to recover money from Mr A’s pension benefits under (what is now) regulation 93. Mr A had left employment due to redundancy and the Council had not become aware of the fraud until after he had left. Mr A, therefore, had not left employment in consequence of a fraudulent act.
The Council argued that a literal reading of what is now regulation would produce an “absurd result”. If the regulations were to be applied in a literal way that prevented recovery, the Council argued it would “conflict with the statutory purposes of protecting scheme members and public funds”.
The Pensions Ombudsman found in favour of Mr A that he had left his employment as a result of redundancy rather than his fraud. The Pensions Ombudsman found that the wording of the regulation was clear and does not leave room for wording to be implied.
This case is a useful reminder of the rights to recover benefits, although it highlights the narrow circumstances in which an individual’s pension rights may be forfeited or benefits recovered. Not only does there need to be serious misconduct or negligence, but the individual must have left employment as a result of that misconduct or negligence. An employer in the LGPS may be unable to recover pension benefits or apply for forfeiture, if the wrongdoing employee conceals their fraud until leaving employment.
That said, there are other potential ways of recovering the money owed. Mr A was still required to pay back the stolen funds by way of a judgment against him, possibly under an attachment of future earnings.
For further advice concerning pension forfeiture and a range of other LGPS matters please contact Doug Mullen.
Necrotising Fasciitis, more commonly known as the ‘flesh-eating disease’, is a significant medical condition that requires urgent treatment.
Many of us who have been following the unfolding Inquest, are not surprised that the Coroner found gross and significant failures on the part of those caring for him.
Transferring out of SHPS will not be suitable for every housing association. So what should housing associations do?
In all the action to remove defective cladding, leaseholders have been the elephant in the room. Whilst social landlords might have adopted a wait and see approach private landlords do not have that luxury.
We welcome the Labour Party’s commitment to doubling the size of the co-operative economy. We wholeheartedly support the ambition to grow this vitally important part of the economy.
It was first referred to in the Charities Act 2006 (which was subsequently replaced by the Charities Act 2011) but it has finally been announced that charitable companies are able to convert to a charitable incorporated organisation (“CIO”).
The Private Members Bill Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill 2017-19 now has Government support and was debated at second reading on Friday 19 January 2018.
In short - yes. This is a common question in personal injury or clinical negligence claims and has recently come before the High Court in judicial review proceedings.
GDPR The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) will come into force on 25 May 2018 and bring changes to the rules governing data protection and the requirements placed on organisations which control or process personal data.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.