As we enter a recession, we have been here before, and a key question is what did we learn and how can we benefit from that learning?
A recent case decided by the Pensions Ombudsman stands as a good reminder to employers to be careful when distinguishing between pensionable employment under a pension scheme’s rules and employment under a contract of employment.
Assuming that these are the same could be a costly error for an employer and upsetting and costly for an individual.
The key provisions of the Teachers’ Pensions Regulations 2014 (Scheme Regulations) relating to this situation are as follows:
- Regulation 23 – a member is not in pensionable employment once they receive less than half-rate sick pay;
- Regulation 127 – in service, death grant is only payable if a member dies whilst in pensionable employment or within 12 months of leaving pensionable employment; and
- Regulation 171 – a member in receipt of an ill-health pension is permitted to commute their benefits for a lump sum if their life expectancy is less than one year.
The Estate of Mrs S against St Paul’s Catholic Junior School, Liverpool City Council and Teachers’ Pensions considered the payment paid to Mrs S’s family following her death in July 2013. Prior to her death, when it became clear that she would not be able to return to work, Mrs S had not opted for ill-health retirement because she understood that she would receive a larger sum on her death if she remained an unpaid employee. This information was incorrect.
Mrs S was diagnosed with melanoma and had various periods of absence from work following her diagnosis in January 2010. On 16 October 2011, her entitlement to sick pay ended but it was agreed that she would remain on the payroll as an unpaid employee and would remain employed for the purposes of the Teachers’ Pensions Scheme. She received two letters from the Teachers’ Pensions Scheme in March 2012 and February 2013 respectively, informing Mrs S of the in-service death grant to which she was eligible. Based on these, once Mrs S’s illness was confirmed as terminal in March 2013, she chose the in-service lump sum death grant and not ill-health retirement as she felt it would provide more for her family.
However, when Mrs S passed away in July 2013, her family received substantially less than they expected to receive in view of her wish not to take the ill-health retirement option. Failing to reach a resolution with the school or council, Mr S appealed to the Ombudsman.
On examination of the events prior to Mrs S’s death, the correspondence she received and the information she was given, the Ombudsman held that the Council were at fault. The Ombudsman ruled that the Council should have known that as of 17 October 2011, when Mrs S exhausted her sick pay, that she was no longer in pensionable employment and should have notified the pension scheme to that effect. This failure resulted in the Teachers’ Pensions Scheme sending Mrs S incorrect benefit statements which she then relied on to make a decision. Had she not received those benefit statements, the Ombudsman said that they were satisfied Mrs S would have made a different decision.
The Ombudsman directed the Council to pay Mrs S’s estate the difference between the death benefits that had already been paid and the maximum amount of benefits she would have received had she taken the ill-health retirement option.
Lessons to be learnt
- The key issue here is that pensionable employment and continuing employment by an employer are not always the same. The former will follow the rules of the pension scheme and not what is agreed between employer and employee. Whilst they may run alongside each other for a large part of the employment relationship, this will not always be the case;
- Always seek clarification from the pension scheme rules when an employee nears the end of their paid sick leave – never assume that the pension will follow any agreement made between employee and employer; and
- Ensure as far as possible that an employee has access to the rules of the pension scheme and/or an adviser so that assurances can be made that they are receiving the correct advice.
For more information on this briefing, please contact Doug Mullen.
It is anticipated that as lockdown restrictions ease, and particularly with children and young adults returning to education, cases of meningitis will start to rise.
As we continue to emerge from lockdown measures and deal with local measures and the short and long term economic impact of Covid-19, local authorities will need to re-assess how services will be delivered for years to come.
The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
One change proposed by the Building Safety Bill is the introduction of a duty holder regime, which will see statutory responsibility for the safety of higher risk buildings placed on key individuals
Throughout this pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been publishing various “Statements on Coronavirus” (Statements) which provide guidance on consumer rights during this time.
A recent increase in COVID-19 cases in the UK means new measures are being put in place in an effort to reduce the risk of a second wave. Whilst the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt, it is important to remain focused on the sector’s road to recovery.
Sometimes half an hour at a conference gives you the reality that has been staring you in the face all along. That was my experience watching “Change is on the Horizon”
Following our recent e-briefing on Possession Notices, Helen Tucker and Emilie Pownall from our housing litigation team discuss the impact of the changes on social landlords.
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.