Determination (Pensions Ombudsman) meaning

Original news Mr T (CAS-64304-R5R1)—14 April 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a complaint concerning the distribution of death benefits from a pension scheme. It concluded the scheme administrator’s decision was reasonable, neither irrational nor perverse. The complainant was not named in a supposed will—which was invalid as it lacked witnesses—and was the sole beneficiary of the late member’s estate. Before deciding, the administrator carried out extensive enquiries. This outcome serves as a reminder that trustees and administrators of pension schemes should undertake appropriate enquiries when determining death benefit payments. What were the facts? Mr S was a member of the AJ Bell You Invest Self invested Personal Pension Plan (the Scheme). Following his death, he was survived by, among others, Mr T. Mr T had entered into a civil partnership with Mr S...

Original news Mr R (CAS-63400-N0T9) – 21 October 2024. Summary The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a grievance concerning a transfer into a pension liberation arrangement. It was considered inappropriate to assess the decision through the lens of hindsight. The 2013 ‘Scorpion’ guidance post-dated the transfer by two years and therefore did not apply anyway. The Scheme undertook suitable, robust and proportionate due diligence consistent with industry practice at the time. This outcome confirms the Pensions Ombudsman does not make retrospective judgements in such circumstances. What were the facts? Mr R held deferred status as a member in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (the ‘Scheme’)...

Original news Mr Y (CAS-57893-P0C6)—20 August 2025 / Ms R (CAS-58612-P1X1)—18 July 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a complaint concerning a loan note investment. The scheme’s independent trustee bore no responsibility for losses arising from this high-risk, speculative asset. The complainants had completed forms confirming the trustee was not giving investment advice and could not be held accountable for any investment loss. The arrangement ran on an execution-only basis. The trustee also undertook appropriate due diligence before proceeding. In light of these factors, no liability ultimately attached to the trustee for the loan note loss. The determination highlights the perils of placing funds into non-standard investments. Accordingly, the complaint failed. What were the facts? Ms R and Mr Y were members of the Westerby Pension Scheme (the Scheme). The Scheme was a self-directed, self-invested personal pension (SIPP) scheme. Westerby Trustee Services Limited (Westerby) was the Scheme’s independent trustee and administrator...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE : The Pension Schemes Bill, anticipated to obtain Royal Assent in 2026, among other measures, would confer on the Pensions Ombudsman powers mirroring those of a competent court where pension overpayments must be recouped. As a result, trustees would no longer need to seek County Court orders in these matters, thereby cutting legal spend, easing administrative effort and promoting a swifter, more streamlined recovery for schemes and members, and ensuring a more efficient process overall. For more detail, see LNB News 05/06/2025 42 and Pension Schemes Bill—tracker — Pensions Ombudsman and overpayments. This Practice Note reviews the scope of the Pensions Ombudsman to handle occupational and personal pension complaints and disputes under its adjudication function, covering: who may bring or refer complaints/disputes which complaints/disputes fall within or outside its remit the powers he can exercise when determining matters relevant time limits Collectively, these areas define the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under its adjudication service for both occupational and personal...

ARCHIVED This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It examines notable decisions of the Pensions Ombudsman and the courts up to 2017 concerning the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, remedial powers and various procedural issues, together with the standards applied to ill-health retirement determinations. For additional detail on key themes from recent Pensions Ombudsman determinations—covering interpretation of scheme rules, the duties of trustees/providers, trustee/provider communications with members, employer duties, pension liberation, and the Ombudsman’s role/jurisdiction—see Practice Note: The Pensions Ombudsman—key themes from the determinations. The Pensions Ombudsman’s determinations do not amount to binding precedents, whether for the same Pensions Ombudsman or for his or her successors in office. Nonetheless, they are valuable as guidance. Traditionally, cases are cited by the complainant’s name along with the reference number assigned by the Ombudsman’s office (a letter signifies the year the complaint was received, followed by a unique number allocated to that case)...

ARCHIVED This case tracker has been archived and is not maintained. It presents a selection of significant pensions judgments issued in 2013–2014. Grenville Holden Hampshire v Board of the Pension Protection Fund Case Name and Reference Number Grenville Holden Hampshire v Board of the Pension Protection Fund — A3/2015/0237 Decision, Representation, Court and Judgment Date, Citation Grenville Holden Hampshire appealed a determination of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Ombudsman in the High Court, contending that: the government had breached the EU Archived Insolvency Directive (Archived Directive 80/987/EEC, superseded by Archived Directive 2008/94/EC on materially identical terms), which requires member states to ensure scheme members receive at least 50% of their benefits where the employer is insolvent; and the Directive has direct effect on UK legislation, requiring domestic law to be interpreted as containing that obligation. Article 8 of the EU Archived Insolvency Directive obliges Member States to “ensure that the necessary measures are taken” to protect the...