Legal News

Summary The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint concerning the settlement of an enhanced early retirement pension. Because the member was entitled to take an unreduced pension without consent at age 60, a late‑retirement uplift had to be applied to benefits taken at age 62 in order to satisfy the preservation requirements, and those requirements trumped the Scheme’s rules. The determination serves as a clear reminder that pension preservation legislation is overriding and therefore takes precedence over any conflicting scheme provisions. What were the facts? Professor N was a deferred member of the TPS Benefits Scheme (the Scheme). Having transferred his benefits across from a government scheme, he held special rights within the Scheme and could draw an unreduced pension at 60 without needing consent. Under Rule 6.3, a late retirement uplift was provided where a member had reached the normal retirement date (age 65) whilst...

Summary The Pensions Ombudsman upheld one complaint in part while rejecting another concerning repayment of pension monies paid in error. One member ought to have recognised a grossly inflated transfer value and made enquiries. Nonetheless, he received redress for significant distress and inconvenience. The second complainant experienced no financial harm. The decision underlines that, to rely on a change of position defence, claimants must demonstrate actual financial loss... What were the facts? Mr L was member of the Royal Academy of Arts Pension Scheme (the Scheme) and Mr G was a member of the Emerson UK Pension Plan (the Plan). Mr L was issued a transfer value illustration reflecting a preserved pension of £3,571. He proceeded to move his benefits to a personal pension and withdrew a cash lump sum. The Scheme subsequently identified that the transfer figure had been materially overstated and pursued...

What was the background to the consultation? On 15 May 2025, the government issued a formal consultation paper setting out detailed proposed reforms to the LGPS in England and Wales, together with accompanying draft regulations to enact them. The exercise centred on changes the government plans to deliver to widen access, improve fairness and simplify administration within the LGPS across the scheme. Survivor benefits and death grants Actions to tackle the gender pension gap Opt-out data collection Forfeiture rules and provisions Outstanding matters under the Mc Cloud remedy A suite of technical regulatory amendments The consultation formally closed on 7 August 2025, and the results were published on 2 February 2026. There were 172 responses, including 49 administering authorities, 25 employers, 68 members, the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board, the LGA, the LGPC, the LGPS National Pension Officer Group, a government department, four trade unions, plus professional bodies, and software and...

In this issue: Pension Schemes Bill Pensions Regulator powers Pension Protection Fund National Insurance Contributions ( Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Funding and investment Local Government Pension Scheme Data Protection Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Pension Schemes Bill Grand Committee Stage completed and revised Bill unveiled for multi-day Report Stage beginning on 16 March 2026 On 23 February 2026, the House of Lords Grand Committee ( Grand Committee) met for its eighth and concluding session on the Pension Schemes Bill, after which the Bill—amended—was reissued. With Grand Committee business now finished, the Bill advances to Report Stage for consideration on 16, 19 and 23 March 2026. In the closing sitting, peers examined a series of fresh, non-government amendments covering: the line between pensions guidance and advice; fossil fuels and...

Smith and others v Campbell and others [2026] EWHC 144 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is a highly practical touchstone for those pursuing or facing applications to remove trustees or executors, and for any dispute where trustees are in adversarial proceedings with beneficiaries. It dispels two widely held but not wholly accurate assumptions: First, that trustees can invariably recoup their costs from the trust or estate and are insulated from adverse costs orders. The court confirms that, where the dispute is properly characterised as contentious litigation, the ordinary costs principles—linked to success and the parties’ conduct—will govern. Secondly, and conversely, that trustees must adopt a stance of strict neutrality and should refrain from defending themselves, even when confronted with extreme allegations, merely because there is a faint prospect of ultimate defeat. This...

Original news Ms N ( CAS-84909- V2W7)—25 September 2025 Summary The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has supported a complaint concerning the settlement of a lump sum death benefit. The Scheme’s trustee/administrator did not identify every potential recipient of that benefit, and failed to make proportionate enquiries. A son of the deceased member incorrectly informed the trustees that he was the sole surviving relative. Relying on that assertion, the trustee paid the whole lump sum to him, unaware of the member’s three other children and their claims. As a result, other potential beneficiaries were overlooked. The determination serves as a reminder that trustees must take proportionate steps to locate all potential beneficiaries. What were the facts? Mr K belonged to the Reassure Personal Pension Plan (the Scheme)......

Original news Mr E ( CAS-63587- P0K4)—22 September 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint concerning inaccurate information supplied by a pension scheme. Relying on the mistaken figures, the member left his role and proceeded to buy a home with a mortgage. As he had been expressly assured that the numbers were correct, the scheme could not fall back on the disclaimer contained in the benefit statement. The determination serves as a reminder that pension schemes cannot invariably place dependence on disclaimers in benefit statements. What were the facts? Mr E was a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (the Scheme). His employment record was complex, including an opt‑out from 1990 to 1994 that was later reinstated. In 2014, a system fault caused the Scheme to wrongly credit Mr E with an extra five years of pensionable service. His May 2012 statement, which carried a...

Original news Mr K ( CAS-44560- Q1C8)—12 September 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint concerning a scheme’s inadequate due diligence on a high-risk investment. The professional trustee was found to have breached both common law and statutory duties by committing funds to storage pods and airport parking. As the investments lacked diversification and were overly speculative, no reasonable trustee would have proceeded. The determination underscores that a professional trustee can be accountable for investment losses even where the member was heavily engaged in making the decision... What were the facts? Mr K was a member of the Blick- Horsham Limited Executive Pension Scheme (the Scheme), a small self-administered scheme ( SSAS). The Scheme’s trustees were Rowanmoor Trustees Limited ( RTL) and Mr K. He proposed investing in storage pods and airport parking via Store First Limited ( Store) and Park First Limited ( Park). In...

No legal duty on pension trustees to carry out due diligence beyond compliance with statutory transfer regime, and member did not need to be an ‘earner’ to acquire ‘transfer credits’ as assumed in Hughes ( Mrs T, CAS-78486- R9D8 & Mr R, CAS-74246- K7Q0) Original news Mrs T ( CAS-78486- R9D8)—30 September 2025 / Mr R ( CAS-74246- K7Q0)—11 September 2025 Summary The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has dismissed two complaints concerning a transfer into a pension liberation arrangement. Regulatory guidance imposed no extra obligation beyond following the statutory transfer framework, and compliance with that regime was sufficient. Each complainant was entitled to a cash equivalent. The statutory reference to ‘transfer credits’ concerns the character of the benefits transferred, not the member’s current earnings or earner status. Taken together, these determinations underline how challenging it is to fix trustees with liability for statutory...

In this issue: The Pensions Regulator The Financial Conduct Authority Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers The Pensions Regulator TPR orders vesting of Vedius Pension Trust assets in independent trustee The Determinations Panel of the Pensions Regulator ( TPR) has issued a determination notice directing that every asset of the Vedius Pension Trust (the Scheme) be vested in its independent trustee, Vidett Governance Services Limited, under section 9 of the Pensions Act 1995 ( PA 1995). Although dated 22 October 2025, the notice has only recently been posted on TPR’s website. Earlier, TPR had appointed the independent trustee pursuant to PA 1995, s 7(3)(b) to ensure the proper administration of the defined contribution occupational pension scheme (468 members), but the Scheme’s assets did not automatically vest on appointment. The appointment power was exercised because the Scheme is a...

Advocate General for Scotland ( Representing the Ministry of Defence) v Milroy [2026] EAT 25 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling potentially carries significant real-world consequences for reservists who were kept outside pension entitlement for service rendered before 1 April 2015, when the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 commenced. That said, it should be borne in mind that under the 1975 and 2005 Armed Forces Pension Schemes, which applied only to regular personnel, a two-year qualifying period was required before any pension rights arose. On the Employment Tribunal’s findings, and looking at typical annual duty days and cumulative service, most reservists would not, in any event, have met the thresholds for a pension under those earlier arrangements. When advising in a specific matter, the individual’s span of service will therefore be a critical consideration. The conclusion on the basic pay point...

In this issue: Pension Schemes Bill Salary sacrifice Collective defined contribution schemes Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Pension Schemes Bill Day 7 Grand Committee: indexation reforms approved, AWE proposal withdrawn By the close of the seventh sitting of the House of Lords Grand Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill, held on 5 February 2026, the government had won the House’s consent to its complete suite of technical changes on pre-1997 indexation for the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme ( FAS). Nevertheless, its principal structural amendment to create a new public sector AWE pension arrangement was withdrawn following concerns raised in debate, and no substitute amendment was tabled that day. The Grand Committee is next due to meet on 23 February 2026 and 3 March 2026 to...

Fresh analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility ( OBR) suggests employers will alter pay structures and pension funding in light of the government’s move to cap National Insurance contributions ( NICs) relief on pension contributions made via salary sacrifice. From 6 April 2029, any salary-sacrificed pension amount over £2,000 per year will attract both employee and employer NICs. Published following calls for greater clarity on the pensions salary sacrifice measure trailed at Budget 2025, the OBR indicates firms are likelier to respond than shoulder the added expense, with a principal assumption that firms will restructure remuneration rather than absorb charges......

In this issue: Pension Schemes Bill Taxation Members and benefits Employers and auto-enrolment Disputes, discrimination and divorce Public sector pension schemes Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Pension Schemes Bill Pension Schemes Bill: Ho L Grand Committee, Day 6: government holds firm amid opposition challenges including on investment mandation On 3 February 2026, the House of Lords Grand Committee wrapped up its sixth day of close scrutiny of Clauses 40 to 96 of the Pension Schemes Bill. All clauses were approved as originally drafted, the government avoided any defeats, and every opposition and non-government amendment was either withdrawn or not moved, including proposals aimed at the highly contentious Clause 40, which sets out reserve powers enabling the government to require minimum asset allocations in defined contribution default funds. The Grand Committee is...

Employment Appeal Judge Douglas Fairley, sitting in Edinburgh, confirmed on 29 January 2026 a decision that the Mo D had penalised Major Charles Milroy. Fairley J said the department did so because of his part-time status, by ignoring his service before April 2015 for pension calculations and paying him less than full-time colleagues. In a judgment that may affect other army reservists, Fairley J rejected the Mo D’s case that Milroy was not a worker for the purposes of the Part-time Workers ( Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, which protect the rights of part-time staff. Fairley J stated that the lower tribunal had ruled ‘that there was no substantial difference between the nature of [ Milroy’s] relationship with the Army on the one hand and that between an employer and......

4 Wheeler Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2026] UKFTT 153 ( GRC) What are the practical implications of this case? In 4 Wheeler Ltd v The Pensions Regulator, the First-tier Tribunal ( FTT) struck out the employer’s appeal against four automatic enrolment penalty notices issued in 2022 and 2023 for want of jurisdiction. Although the missed statutory deadlines were not contested, the pivotal questions were whether the notices had been duly ‘issued’ and whether the appeal gateways in section 44 of the Pensions Act 2008 ( PA 2008) were satisfied. The FTT concluded that The Pensions Regulator ( TPR) had met its burden by showing all four notices were properly issued to the appellant—sent to the correct address and received—and that neither jurisdictional condition in PA 2008, s44(2) was fulfilled, as TPR had not conducted a review and no valid...

Trustee removal following breakdown in relations with beneficiaries ( Smith & others v Campbell & others) Smith & others v Campbell & others [2025] EWHC 3011 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment delivers a close review of the governing authorities and the material before the court concerning several prospective grounds for displacing trustees. Of note for practitioners are the following: Hostility, tension, or a collapse in relationships that reasonably prompts doubt about whether the trust will be administered properly for the beneficiaries as a whole can justify removing trustees (the judge referred to Hudman v Morris [2021] EWHC 1400 ( Ch)). Allegations that trustees failed to follow an appropriate process when removing company directors do not, by themselves, warrant the trustees’ removal. The court will not determine whether the director removal is commercially justified. The selection of trustees by the person who created the trust is a...

In this issue: Pension Schemes Bill Taxation Trustees, governance and administration Members and benefits Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Pension Schemes Bill House of Lords examines Pension Schemes Bill provisions on Vf M, small pots consolidation, scheme scale and asset allocation The House of Lords Grand Committee resumed scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Bill on Thursday 22 January 2026 and Monday 26 February 2026. On the fourth day of Grand Committee, Thursday 22 January 2026, peers conducted a detailed review of the value for money ( Vf M) framework, consolidation of small pots, scheme scale requirements and the reserve power to direct asset allocation. Proceedings confirmed the government’s legislative approach: broad enabling powers in primary law, with the substantive detail to follow through regulations, consultations and guidance. Despite sustained questioning from peers on...

Original news Sources: Blog: Pensions Dashboard Programme: Reporting standards: latest update and consultation News: Pensions Dashboard Programme: Reporting standards: draft version 2.1 Pensions Dashboards Programme: Reporting standards draft version 2.1 consultation News summary The Draft Reporting Standards outline plans requiring occupational pension schemes and pension providers linked to the pensions dashboards ecosystem to send most reporting information to Ma PS every day. This would replace the current arrangement in Reporting Standards version 2.0, under which data on coverage, service availability and view responses must be created, retained and provided to Ma PS upon request. The consultation does not change which information must be created, recorded and reported, and applies to trustees and scheme managers of occupational pension schemes, managers of personal and stakeholder pension schemes, and third parties delivering reporting on their behalf. Views are invited on...

Original news Source: Hansard: Pension Schemes Bill, Volume 852: debated on Monday 26 January 2026 News summary Day 5 of the House of Lords Grand Committee’s line-by-line review of the Pension Schemes Bill on 26 January 2026 centred on an intensive interrogation of Clause 40. This provision sets out scale conditions, shapes default arrangement design and confers reserve powers over asset allocation for defined contribution workplace pensions. At its heart—and the focus of exchanges—was a duty on large schemes to run a single main scale default arrangement ( MSDA) under one shared investment strategy. Members from all benches pressed ministers on the drive for scale, the suggested £25bn asset threshold, the contraction of default choices into a single approach, and how far reserve powers might compel investment in private markets. For the government, the Minister of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Sherlock,...