This cap was due to affect all of the public sector and affects both employees and office holders. However, on 12 February 2021, the Government issued a Treasury Direction disapplying the cap due to 'unintended consequences' and will revoke the Regulations. That does not seem to be the end of the story as the Government has said that it plans to bring forward proposals quickly to address 'unjustified exit payments'.
What was the cap?
The £95,000 cap implemented by the Regulations applied to payments made to an employee or office holder in connection to their loss of employment or office in the public sector. The cap applied to the aggregate of payments to be made.
Where an individual received two or more exit payments in a 28-day period, they could not receive more than £95,000 in total.
Who was covered by the Regulations?
The Regulations were intended to encompass the majority of the public sector namely:
Registered providers of social housing, arms-length management organisations and services outsourced by public bodies were not covered by the Regulations.
What exit payments were covered by the Regulations?
The cap applied to any payment made in connection with the termination of employment or a loss of office. However, certain payments were not considered exit payments by the Regulations. This included:
Redundancy payments, in general, were subject to the cap. However, the cap did not apply to:
Were pensions affected by the cap?
Members of local government pension schemes (LGPS) may elect to retire before the normal pension age, provided they are aged 55 or over. In such cases, employers may make additional contributions to the pension scheme so that the benefit received by the member is not reduced. These are known as pension strain payments. Similarly, an employee aged 55 or over who is made redundant is required to receive their pension benefit early and, in that circumstance, the employer is required to make a strain payment.
The Government noted in its response to the consultation on the Regulations that employer-funded early retirement tends to be the most costly element of exit payments that are typically funded by the taxpayer.
It was intended that pension strain payments would be subject to the cap. As a result, strain payments could be reduced and, consequently, a member’s pension could be actuarially reduced. The expectation was for scheme members to be given the option to either make up any shortfall using their own funds or to accept the partially reduced pension or choose to defer their pension until a later stage.
Could the cap be relaxed?
Certain bodies, such as local councils and fire authorities, did have the ability to relax the cap. For any non-Welsh public body to do so, it had to either obtain consent from the Treasury or comply with any directions given by the Treasury.
MHCLG Regulations
The MHCLG carried out a consultation proposing further reforms to redundancy payments for the Public sector. The key proposals were:
The consultation ended on 9 November 2020.
Why was the cap disapplied and the Regulations revoked?
The announcement from the Treasury states that it was disapplying the cap with immediate effect and will revoke the Regulations due to possible 'unintended consequences'. It doesn’t however make clear what those unintended consequences were.
It is likely that a number of judicial reviews were brought by Lawyers in Local Government (LLG), the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (ALACE), GMB Union and the British Medical Association were instrumental in this conclusion. LLG and ALACE identified that there had been procedural flaws in bringing forward the Regulations and also that the cap would affect 86% of local government officers over the age of 55. They also commented that this amounted to a retrospective removal of pension benefits.
Other flaws in the Regulations included the situation where an employee was contractually entitled to payment but the payment was capped. A claim could have been brought against the public body to seek to recover any money lost as a result of the cap. In such circumstances, a successful claim for compensation could have meant that the public body was ultimately ordered to pay the full, uncapped amount to the employee.
What is the position where exit payments have already been paid and capped?
The Treasury direction encourages employers to retrospectively payout sums that would have been due if the cap had not been in place and says that the Treasury’s expectation is that employers will do so.
Will this be the end of the matter?
It seems unlikely given that the Treasury Guidance says that it “will bring forward proposals at a pace to tackle unjustified exit payments.” Precisely what an 'unjustified' exit payment remains to be seen.
Key points to take away
If you have any queries regarding this article or any other queries around termination payments, please contact Matt Gregson and Doug Mullen.
We are delighted to announce that our private wealth law department has continued to maintain its Band 2 position in the latest edition of Chambers and Partners High Net Worth.
Charities, like other organisations, may be subject to or choose to voluntarily comply with the reporting requirements under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The draft regulations making it mandatory for anyone entering a registered care home in England to have been double vaccinated unless they are clinically exempt were made on 22 July 2021.
In the Transforming Public Procurement Green Paper, the Government signalled its desire to increase its control over procurements by all contracting authorities.
The monthly round-up from the Anthony Collins Solicitors charities team.
Legal updates as the UK enters into stage 4 of the roadmap and legal restrictions on face coverings and social distancing are lifted.
The first disability we are going to discuss is diabetes. We begin by discussing the different types of diabetes; their similarities and differences and how we live with the disability within our day.
Tim Coolican and Freya Cassia explore the legal and practical options available to providers if a disappointing result is received following an inspection.
Following the launch of the CQC’s new strategy for how it regulates health and social care, many providers will be keen to know more about how the changes might affect them in the future.
EPC’s are not required to be served with a Section 21 notice for assured shorthold tenancies if the tenancy predates October 2015.
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.