During the Covid-19 pandemic, much of the focus has been on shoring up existing delivery and, where possible, extending arrangements if it is not possible to re-procure.
Mrs S was employed by the East Sussex Healthcare Trust (ESHT). She was also a member of the NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme). In September 1996, her work was outsourced, and there was a TUPE transfer to a non-NHS employer. In June 2001, Mrs S's employment was transferred back to ESHT when the service was taken back in-house. ESHT submitted a form for Mrs S to re-join the Scheme which was accepted. However, as Mrs S was over the age of 60, she was ineligible to re-join the Scheme.
In August 2014, 13 years after she had re-joined, NHS Pensions notified Mrs S that she had not been eligible to re-join the Scheme. This was the result of a concerted effort by NHS Pensions to identify ineligible members of the Scheme. ESHT reimbursed Mrs S for the contributions she made between September 2001 and March 2015, and NHS Pensions paid her interest of £1,132.71 on these contributions. Mrs S was also permitted to claim pension benefits backdated to her 60th birthday (27 January 2001), and NHS Pensions paid interest on the late payment of these benefits.
Mrs S made a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman over the delay in NHS Pensions realising she wasn’t eligible, but NHS Pensions maintained that Mrs S had been ineligible to re-join the Scheme. However, NHS Pensions offered £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to realise that Mrs S was not eligible back in 2001.
The Pensions Ombudsman agreed that Mrs S was not eligible to re-join the scheme, and was not therefore entitled to receive benefits for the period in which she was ineligible. Mrs S argued that, had she known in 2001, she would have made an alternative pension arrangement. She then asked the Pensions Ombudsman to order that she be provided with pension benefits equivalent to those that she had lost. The Pensions Ombudsman decided that it was unlikely that she would have made alternative arrangements, given the higher costs of getting equivalent benefits to the Scheme in a personal pension scheme. The Pensions Ombudsman decided that Mrs S was entitled to the return of her contributions, less 20% tax and interest in addition. The Pensions Ombudsman also decided that Mrs S should be awarded £2,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience due to NHS Pensions’ maladministration, and stated that this was a higher award based on the lengthy period that NHS Pensions had failed to inform Mrs S that she was ineligible.
This case highlights the importance of ensuring that only eligible employees join pension schemes. Had the Ombudsman decided that Mrs S would have made alternative arrangements, NHS Pensions would also have needed to fund benefits equivalent to the Scheme benefits for 13 years, probably at a very significant cost. The level of compensation for distress and inconvenience was much higher than usual, no doubt influenced by the significant impact on Mrs S' pension benefits.
The problem of allowing ineligible employees to join a pension scheme is not limited to the NHS Pension Scheme, it could also rear its head in the Teachers' Pension Scheme and Local Government Pension Scheme. Employers and pension scheme administrators should ensure that they manage their pension administration carefully so that only eligible employees join to avoid significant awards for distress and/or having to fund equivalent benefits outside the scheme that could be costly.
For more information
For advice on the issues raised in this briefing or on public-sector pensions generally, please contact Doug Mullen. For more information about the work that we do at Anthony Collins Solicitors, please visit our website.
The Prime Minister announced on Tuesday 22 September a new range of restrictions to protect us from the Covid crisis, some of which will apply to charities.
Following the end of the possession stay on 21 September, Helen Tucker & Rebecca Sembuuze from our housing litigation team discuss the most recent guidance, priority cases and what to expect in court.
Covid-19 has resulted, on the whole, in a marked co-operation between contracting authorities and their suppliers as everybody focuses on maintaining delivery as far as possible.
Employment Tribunal rules in favour of claimants in minimum wage case – has the interpretation of “working time” changed?
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?
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.
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.