West Yorkshire Pension Fund Cas 80563 W3C7 0 · CAS-80563-W3C7

CAS-80563-W3C7

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs R

Scheme West Yorkshire Pension Fund (the Scheme)

Respondents City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Administrator)

Leeds City Council (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events are not in dispute, so I have only set out the main points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

On 15 September 2016, Mrs R left employment with the Employer and became a deferred member of the Scheme.

1 a provision of the Local Government Pension Scheme that allows certain members who retire before their normal

retirement date to take their pension benefits without reduction. It applies if the sum of a member's age and length of Local Government Pension Scheme membership (both in full years) equals 85 or more. This rule was abolished for new accrual after September 30 2006. 1 CAS-80563-W3C7 On 28 January 2017, the Administrator wrote to Mrs R and issued her deferred benefits statement. It illustrated her pension benefits as an annual pension of £19,921.52 and a lump sum of £40,340.78 payable unreduced from July 2032, her 67th birthday.

In 2017 the Administrator contacted Mrs R and issued her 2017 annual benefit statement (2017 ABS). It illustrated her benefits as an annual pension of £20,046.13 and a lump sum of £40,574.76 payable unreduced from July 2032.

In 2018 the Administrator contacted Mrs R and issued her 2018 annual benefit statement (2018 ABS). It illustrated her pension benefits as an annual pension of £20,647.51 and a lump sum of £41,793.03 payable unreduced from July 2032.

On 24 May 2019, the Administrator provided Mrs R with her 2019 annual benefit statement (2019 ABS) which contained incorrect information. The format had been changed to illustrate what her pension benefits would be if she retired at age 55, 60, 65 and age 67. While the calculations for retirement at age 60 through to 67 were correct, it incorrectly failed to apply the relevant early retirement reduction to her pension benefits if she retired at the age of 55 in July 2020. It also incorrectly illustrated her an annual pension of £18,406.30 and lump sum of £42,797.53 or maximum lump sum of £94,168.93 and a reduced annual pension of £14,125.35 if she retired at age 55. The 2019 ABS contained a disclaimer (the Disclaimer) that highlighted that “this statement is only for your information. … We will work out the final level of your benefits when you claim them, based on why and when you claim them.” It went on to highlight that Mrs R should contact the Administrator for a retirement quotation if she wished to retire at age 55.

On 28 May 2019, The Administrator identified a system error which incorrectly calculated the actuarial reductions for a small group of deferred members who had satisfied the 85 year rule criteria before the age of 60 and had been sent a 2019 ABS. Mrs R was one of these affected members.

On 30 May 2019, the Administrator fixed the system error, so it was not replicated in ABS’ produced after this date. It attempted to identify the members affected by the incorrect 2019 ABS’ however the system could not search to identify the incorrect statements that had been sent. Due to the small number of deferred members affected it expected that they would contact the Administrator to request retirement quotations from age 55. Additionally, it decided that upon receiving any queries regarding the incorrect 2019 ABS’ it would carry out thorough checks to confirm the calculations and if the member was affected by the mistake, apologise and reissue the ABS with the correct information. Its representatives were also instructed to note affected members in its quality investigation register.

On 31 May 2019, Mrs R stated she spoke to the Administrator to discuss her 2019 ABS.

2 CAS-80563-W3C7 On 10 February 2020, Mrs R says she spoke with the Administrator, although it has no record of this call. Mrs R says that during this call she asked for assistance to activate the online pension system account.

In 2020, the Administrator changed the ABS’ format to include the statement that members should, ‘Always make sure you contact us for a Deferred Retirement Quote before making any decisions to retire.’

On 19 March 2020, Mrs R contacted the Administrator. She requested a retirement quotation with her deferred pension benefits calculated from her 55th Birthday in July 2020.

On 18 April 2020, the Administrator provided Mrs R a retirement quotation (the 2020 quotation) of her pension from her 55th Birthday in July 2020. It was lower than the 2019 ABS and illustrated an annual pension of £15,497.84 with a lump sum of £38.649.02. Or alternatively a maximum lump sum of £80,222.54 and a reduced annual pension of £12,033.38.

On 22 April 2020, Mrs R contacted the Administrator to enquire why the 2020 quotation was lower than the 2019 ABS.

On 23 April 2020, two events took place:

• The Administrator emailed Mrs R. It confirmed that the 2020 quotation was correct, and apologised for the incorrect 2019 ABS. It acknowledged that the 2019 ABS was the first time it had issued ABS’ to illustrate members benefits over 4 different payment dates at ages 55, 60, 65 and 67 which was her normal state retirement age. It identified that the mistake was caused by a coding error in the calculations and affected a small number of members who had satisfied the 85 year rule criteria. It apologised and recognised that it should have informed her of the error sooner.

• In response to a telephone call by Mrs R, the Administrator called back and was informed that she was upset about the incorrect 2019 ABS as she had been planning to retire and was disappointed with the lower 2020 quotation figures. She was angry and upset that it had not informed her about the mistake. She stated her intention to formally complain, and she requested Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP) forms. She also requested that her pension benefits be rechecked and that a breakdown of the calculation be provided.

On 24 April 2020, the Administrator provided Mrs R a breakdown of her pension calculations and the IDRP application form she requested.

On 27 April 2020, the Administrator internally logged the incorrect 2019 ABS and the failures to record the telephone call of 31 May 2019 in its Quality Investigations Register. It had investigated its received telephone calls but could not find the call of 31 May 2019. It internally took steps to remind its representatives to make phone logs after every call.

3 CAS-80563-W3C7 On 5 May 2020, Mrs R contacted the Administrator and issued a formal complaint. She argued:

• She complained that the information provided in her 2019 ABS and its handling of the mistake, by not communicating the mistake amounted to maladministration. She requested that the Employer and the Administrator exercise discretion, which would allow her to receive her benefits without reduction from her 55th birthday in July 2020, in line with the incorrect 2019 ABS.

• Soon after the 2019 ABS, the Administrator discovered the mistake but took no action. It was not until she contacted it and enquired about the 2020 quotation that she was informed of the mistake. At that point she had been reliant on the incorrect 2019 ABS for her financial planning and had been repeatedly reassured over 11 months that she could rely on it. She was only told that she may be paid slightly more due to pension increases from April 2020.

• Despite being aware of Mrs R’s intention to retire at age 55, its failure to inform her has resulted in her having to rethink her financial plans due to the significant financial difference and its financial impact. Additionally, she has had to pursue her complaint, 10 weeks prior to her intended retirement date at age 55.

• The mistake raised significant concerns about the Administrators internal quality standards and processes. She argued that she had not received consistent or satisfactory explanations of the mistake, or that assurances had been taken to rectify the mistake.

• She requested compensatory action without prejudice of any further action she may pursue depending on its response.

On 7 May 2020, the Administrator emailed the Employer informally to explain the mistake and Mrs R’s complaint. It enquired whether the Employer would exercise its discretion to waive its early retirement reductions.

On 11 May 2020, the Employer emailed the Administrator in response. It explained that it would be unlikely to exercise its discretion due to the costs involved and the lack of clear business case to justify the outlay. In turn it enquired whether if it waived the early retirement reduction, the Administrator would meet the cost. However, the Administrator found no evidence to suggest that it responded to the Employer’s inquiry.

4 CAS-80563-W3C7

5 CAS-80563-W3C7

• It reiterated its stance that it corrected the mistake as soon as it became aware of it. It took the following action, notified its staff of this issue, and amended the wording of the 2020 ABS to make it clearer that members should request retirement quotations before making a decision to retire. Staff were also informed that they should make detailed records of telephone conversations.

• It accepted that its failure to inform Mrs R of the mistake in her 2019 ABS amounted to maladministration. However, it had a duty to calculate her pension benefits in line with the relevant legislation, and therefore could not honour the incorrect figures illustrated in her 2019 ABS.

• Its maladministration had caused Mrs R distress and inconvenience, as compensation it offered her £500. It also apologised for the mistake and any distress caused.

6 CAS-80563-W3C7

• She expressed disappointment that it did not express any regret or concern for her circumstances or the detriment that she has suffered as a result of her reliance on the incorrect information provided by the Administrator. Nor did it comment on the actions of the Administrator, who acts as its agent.

• The Administrator had acknowledged its maladministration. She was pursuing a formal complaint through its IDRP as she suffered a significant reduction to her financial expectations. She had been referred back to the incorrect 2019 ABS for the duration of a year prior to her intended retirement date at age 55. Additionally, she suffered stress and anxiety trying to resolve the mistake in time for her intended retirement age in July 2020, which was furthered by pursuing the Employer for information and updates when it failed to meet its response timescale.

• She requested a copy of the information report presented to the DCO when making its decision whether or not to activate the 85 year rule, and action it had taken to ensure the Administrator’s quality of service for the Employer’s employees.

• There were continuous service failures/issues in her dealings with the Administrator which had been ongoing since April 2020.

• The Administrator’s representative had made no contact with her other than by emails and had made no attempts to assess the emotional impact on her. 7 CAS-80563-W3C7 • The redress it offered in compensation was in direct contrast with the Guidance. In particular, she felt that the Administrator had ignored the Guidance where it stated that a respondent’s behaviour that persists in making it difficult for a member to achieve redress and causing more anxiety was likely to result in a higher award.

• Her request to receive a higher level of redress for her distress was justified, foreseeable and credible. As the Administrator provided her with incorrect information in her 2019 ABS, it misguided her as to her financial expectations.

• She had experienced shock, disbelief, anger and emotional distress as well as anxiety from when she first became aware of the incorrect information following the receipt of the 2020 quotation on 22 April 2020.

• She had used the incorrect 2019 ABS in her retirement planning and was not aware it was incorrect until she received her retirement quote on 22 April 2020, when she sought to start retirement.

• The Administrator had been aware of the mistake and done nothing to inform her, even despite her various correspondence with it between the receipt of her 2019 ABS and the retirement quote of 22 April 2020.

• There was a significant discrepancy between the benefits illustrated in her 2019 ABS and the retirement quotation of 22 April 2020. It illustrated a reduction of £15,547.26 to her lump sum and £2,332.10 in her annual pension.

• The Administrator amended the format of the 2020 ABS to include an additional disclaimer emphasising that the benefit illustrations could not be relied upon, and formal quotes should be relied upon before making financial decisions. However, this was not communicated to her prior to her receiving the retirement quotation and she had consistently referred to her 2019 ABS as correct when corresponding with the Administrator.

• She had a medical history of stress and anxiety, which resulted in her taking a temporary leave of absence due to work related stress during her employment with the Employer in 2013. Thus, the impact of the Administrator’s maladministration had a greater impact on her due to this pre-existing condition.

• She left employment in 2016 following a period of illness and without income. Due to the lack of income, she was expectant to benefit from the protections illustrated in her 2019 ABS.

• She identified that in accordance with the Pensions Ombudsman’s approach she had requested the Administrator to correct the mistake, before later pursuing other avenues. All of which, in addition to the points raised above, had taken a significant amount of time and caused her further distress and anxiety.

• The Administrator was aware of the coding error and did not take proactive action to inform members. Instead, it took steps to amend the ABS format to ensure

8 CAS-80563-W3C7 members didn’t rely on the information provided as opposed to addressing the coding error.

• The 2019 ABS contained an error which had suggested that Mrs R was entitled to retire at age 55 with an unreduced pension.

9 CAS-80563-W3C7 • While the error was identified on 28 May 2019 and fixed it on 20 May 2019, as it was in relation to the application of the 85 year rule protection calculations, it was unable to identify the incorrect statements that had already been issued. The only way to remedy the situation was to check every members’ individual record which would have cost the Administrator thousands of pounds. Additionally, the number of members who would have received the incorrect ABS, met the 85 year rule and sought to retire prior the 2020 ABS were relatively small. Plus, it expected to receive queries for retirement quotations prior to taking their pension.

• There was no record of a call on 31 May 2019 and the record it had for 10 February 2020, stated that Mrs R had only sought assistance with accessing its online pension account. Due to this it had reminded its representatives to make detailed notes of all telephone calls, but there was no evidence that Mrs R had been told she could rely on the 2019 ABS.

• The 2019 ABS included a statement that informed Mrs R that it was for information purposes only and advised her to contact the Administrator two months in advance if she wanted to retire from age 55. It acknowledged that the ABS’ could have made it clearer that she should not rely on the ABS’ in making financial decisions and to request a retirement quotation to do so.

• It acknowledged when issuing the 2020 quotation that the calculations should have been thoroughly checked, with the mistake in her 2019 ABS identified and corrected, with a formal apology provided to Mrs R.

• Regarding its delay in responding to emails, its review showed that there was no delay, with the exception of her emails on 24 August 2020, 14 and 28 September 2020 which it responded to on 30 September 2020. It apologised for the delay.

• That it could have taken further steps to advise the members and employers of the mistake and explored ways of highlighting this on its website, the deferred member newsletter, or at employer meetings.

• The Administrator had accepted that maladministration had taken place and offered her £500 as compensation for non-financial injustice. It considered Mrs R’s request for £2,000. However, it found an additional payment of £500 sufficient, totalling £1,000, as the Administrator was quick to fix the error once identified, it provided the correct information in its 2020 quotation, and it had amended the ABS’ to highlight that ABS’ were not to be relied on for decision making. Further, it had reminded staff to record all telephone calls, apologised and made payment for the inconvenience and distress she had suffered.

10 CAS-80563-W3C7

On 29 June 2021, the Administrator wrote to Mrs R and provided her with its IDRP Stage 2 decision. It found that the degree of distress and inconvenience caused to Mrs R was severe, however no additional compensation payment was warranted. It stated:

• It was satisfied that it had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and Mrs R had received her correctly calculated benefits. It was also satisfied that upon it identifying her as one of the affected deferred members, it recognised the early retirement reduction had not been applied and correctly calculated her benefits, ensuring the 2020 quotation was correct.

• In applying the correct early retirement reduction, it acted in accordance with the guidance issued by the Government Actuary’s Department on 26 November 2018 and in accordance with the 2013 Regulations. It also added the correct pension increase in the 2020 quotation.

• Its IDRP Stage 1 decision was in accordance with the LGPS Regulations and thus it could not overturn the Stage 1 decision regarding her pension payment at age 55 and the relevant early retirement reduction. However, it did acknowledge Mrs R did suffer a degree of distress as a result of maladministration and how her case was dealt with.

• It highlighted that it was difficult to identify the affected members and would have been costly and time consuming, especially considering the small number of 11 CAS-80563-W3C7 individuals affected. However, it acknowledged that it could have made more effort to address the mistake when she requested a quotation in March 2020. It could have offered appropriate remedial action to make the circumstances less stressful to her.

• In investigating the impact of the maladministration, it found that further investigation would have been subjective and time consuming. It had already received substantial evidence of her distress and inconvenience at during her informal complaint and IDRP Stage 1. It noted that she was originally awarded £500 compensation at the Informal complaint stage and a further £500 in the IDRP Stage 1 decision, totalling £1,000. Using the Pensions Ombudsman’s guidance it identified the distress suffered as severe but found that no additional payment was warranted. As such it rejected the request to increase its award payment to £2,000.

• It explored her complaint regarding whether or not it adequately addressed the Employer’s offer to use its discretion if the Administrator met the costs. It explained that its administering authority was not in a position to meet any associated costs. As it did not have a separate pool of money available to meet such costs. Thus, if the Employer applied its discretion, the Employer would need to meet the costs, otherwise the cost would be shared by all active WYPF employers. While Regulation 68 (2) of the LGPS Regulations 2013 did provide it the discretion to require immediate payment of early retirement costs from employers, and in exceptional circumstances it could agree not to require immediate payment. Regardless, the Employer made the decision not to exercise its discretion.

Following the complaint being referred to The Pensions Ombudsman, Mrs R, the Administrator and the Employer made the following submissions.

Summary of Mrs R’s position Against the Administrator

She relied on the incorrect information provided by the Administrator in the 2019 ABS to make her decision to retire at age 55, unreduced. Upon receiving the correct 2020 quotation, it provided her a lower benefit sum as it contained a reduction for retiring at age 55.

After she left employment with the Employer in 2016, she had no access to pension information until she received the 2019 ABS and then the 2020 quotation.

Despite it being aware of the error soon after the 2019 ABS’ was issued, the Administrator made no attempt to inform her of the issue prior to the 2020 quotation. Further, its attempt to rectify the mistake by amending the 2020 ABS’ and implemented practices failed in her case, further compounding the original mistake.

12 CAS-80563-W3C7 When she contacted it by telephone on 31 May 2019 and 10 Feb 2020 it failed to inform her of the mistake. Rather, it informed her the 2019 ABS was sufficient for her to rely on in making her financial planning, especially due to her length of service protections which she understood to be the rule of 85. Additionally, while the 2019 ABS stated it was for information only, it contained no warning or notice about the reliability of the calculations and that the actual amounts payable could be lower. Therefore, she had no reason to doubt the incorrect 2019 ABS.

In May 2020, in its correspondence with the Employer as to whether it could exercise its discretion, the Employer indicated it could exercise the discretion if the Administrator met the costs. However, it did not communicate this to her but rather informed her that the Employer was unlikely to exercise discretion as there was no business cause to support the decision. It also did not share this with her and it was not until she received the Employer’s IDRP Stage 1 decision letter that she became aware of this.

Due to its mistake, she has suffered financial loss of a £15,547.26 reduction to her maximum lump sum and a £2,332.10 reduction to her annual pension.

Against the Employer

Its actions displayed a lack of care or concern for its former employee, and it was inconsistent in its approach to applying its discretion and it did not correctly consider her case when exercising its discretion.

It did not explain to the “Chief Officer” considering her case, from its May 2020 email, regarding the exercise of its discretion if the Administrator met the costs.

Further, upon receiving confirmation that the estimated cost to switch on the 85 year rule was £64,925, it ignored the third criteria in its discretion policy where it was to consider a member’s personal circumstances under Reg 1(1)(c), Schedule 2, of the Local Government Pension Scheme Transitional Regulations 2014 (the 2014 Regulations).

It did not adequately address the impact its decision or the original error had on her. As such, she has concerns about whether the decision-making process was appropriate and transparent and the level to which it was considered.

Overall

Both the Administrator and the Employer made no effort to explore how to exercise the Employer’s discretion and in made decisions solely focused on the ability to pay. The approach taken by both has been “crass” and “unfeeling”, with neither taking steps to adequately identify the level of her distress or inconvenience. Nor did either sufficiently consider the impact of the mistake on her or her mental health or take any time or effort to discuss the impact with her by phone or face to face.

The Administrator’s offer of £1,000 does not adequately address the distress and inconvenience she has suffered. It does not take into consideration the time and 13 CAS-80563-W3C7 energy spent in pursuing her complaint and correspondence over a significant period of time. The Administrator in particular either failed to meet its response timescales, extended it or responded at the last minute, suggesting it had no concern about her personal circumstances or the distress and inconvenience she suffered. As redress, she seeks £2,000 as compensation.

Summary of the Administrator’s position It notes that part of Mrs R’s complaint concerns the Employer’s decision not to waive the reduction to her benefits. This is a discretion solely held by the Employer, therefore the Administrator responds solely to the provision of incorrect information in the 2019 ABS.

It accepts and acknowledges that Mrs R received incorrect information in her 2019 ABS. However, the mistake relates solely to the calculation of her benefits payable from age 55. The other benefit calculations in the 2019 ABS were correct. Further, the 2019 ABS clearly stated that it was for information only and her actual pension benefits would be calculated once she decided to claim it.

Upon her requesting a quotation on 19 March 2020, it provided her the correctly calculated 2020 quotation on 18 April 2020. Upon receiving Mrs R’s call on 22 April 2020, in which she queried the difference, it emailed her on 23 April 2020. It confirmed the 2020 quotation was correct and apologised for the 2019 ABS mistake. There was further correspondence between Mrs R and its representatives that led to it sending her an IDRP application on 24 April 2020 along with a breakdown of her benefit calculations.

When it received her complaint on 5 May 2020, it acknowledged the complaint on 7 May 2020, and a full response was issued on 22 May 2020. In its response it provided a detailed explanation of the cause of the error and the actions it took to rectify it. In response to her request for compensation on 27 May 2020 with the preference of receiving her benefits from age 55 unreduced, it had offered her £500 payment as compensation on 29 May 2020, for the distress and inconvenience she suffered.

It was quick to respond to Mrs R’s email request to increase the £500 payment on 20 August 2020. On 21 August 2020, it responded to her and confirmed it would not increase the payment. In response to her further emails of 24 August 2020 and 14 September 2020 requesting an increase to the compensation payment, it reaffirmed its decision not to increase the compensation payment on 30 September 2020. Mrs R accepted payment of the £500 on 8 October 2020.

In its IDRP Stage 1 decision on 9 December 2020, it was directed to pay her an additional £500 as compensation. It communicated this to Mrs R in its letter on 21 December 2020, which she accepted on 5 March 2021, and it paid to her on 10 March 2021. It’s IDRP Stage 2 decision found that the degree of distress and

14 CAS-80563-W3C7 inconvenience caused to Mrs R was severe, however no additional compensation payment was warranted.

Summary of the Employer’s position

Adjudicator’s Opinion

• Concerning Complaint 1, the Adjudicator was of the view that it was reasonable for Mrs R to rely on the 2019 ABS. The ABS’ noted the figures provided were for information purposes only. However, the purpose of sending ABS’ is for the member to use them in conjunction to review their pension and, ultimately to aid retirement planning. Further, all of Mrs R’s ABS’ prior to the 2019 ABS were correct. It was only the pension payable from age 55 that was incorrect, the rest of the 2019 ABS contained correct information which corresponded with the ABS’ from previous years. Considering the pension calculation at age 55 was newly introduced in the 2019 ABS, it was unlikely that she would have been aware that the pension illustrated was incorrect. Especially considering the rest of the 2019 ABS correctly corresponded with the previous years’ ABS’ making it unlikely that she would have noticed any mistakes.

15 CAS-80563-W3C7 • However, in the Adjudicators view, Mrs R had not suffered an actual financial loss, rather she suffered a loss of expectation as she was never legally entitled to the incorrect calculations in the 2019 ABS. Further, no evidence has been provided that she made any irreversible decisions having received the 2019 ABS and she was in the same position as she would have been in had the 2019 ABS not been received. Additionally, she was provided with the 2020 quotation containing the correct information, soon after her request and before she took early retirement.

• For the reasons set out above, the Adjudicator did not believe Complaint 1 should be upheld.

• Concerning Complaint 2, where a person retires before their normal pension age, as Mrs R sought to do, it is not unusual for their pension to be actuarially reduced in accordance with the scheme’s rules of governing regulations. This is because the pension is paid to the individual for a longer period than was originally intended when the pension commenced. So, the pension fund would bear the liability for a longer period.

• Although Mrs R wanted the Employer to waive the early retirement reduction to her pension by meeting the additional cost to the Fund, it had no obligation to do so, only a discretionary power to cover the cost. The Employers application of its discretion is covered in the Discretionary Pension Policy Statement (the Policy). Essentially, the Employer should consider each case individually on its on merits against three key concerns:

(a) The Employer’s ability to meet the cost of the request.

(b) Any demonstratable cost saving in excess of potential savings available under any severance in place can be made.

(c) The member’s personal circumstances.

• The Adjudicator found that the Employer correctly considered and applied its discretion concerning the facts of Mrs R’s case. It considered the cost to waive the reduction, which was significant, and any saving that could be gained from its decision. However, as Mrs R was no longer an employee there was no salary saving to offset against the cost of allowing her to retire early. There was insufficient evidence to show that the decision not to waive the reduction was inequitable or that Mrs R had materially changed her position.

• Mrs R had the opportunity to present further evidence for reconsideration at IDRP Stage 1. However, she presented no new information.

• The offer to apply its discretion if the Administrator met the costs was not significant enough to be an omission as the Administrator confirmed it would not have been likely to meet the costs. It did not materially change the fact that while both entities were willing to find a way to apply the discretion, neither were able to

16 CAS-80563-W3C7 account for the cost. In making its decision, the Employer has a duty to consider all three elements of its test, and it did so adequately.

• The Adjudicator acknowledged the distress Mrs R stated she had suffered and understood the inconvenience in pursuing her complaint and relying on the incorrect information. Due to the Administrator not informing the affected deferred members sufficiently prior to the 2020 ABS’, the mistake persisted for almost a year. It failed on several occasions to correctly inform Mrs R about the mistake or implement its corrective procedures following the mistake. However, upon her request it was quick to provide her the 2020 quotation which contained the correct information. As such, the offer of £1,000 compensation is sufficient and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

• Awards for non-financial injustice are intended to provide some modest recognition that the individual has suffered distress and inconvenience. They are not intended to be corrective.

Mrs R did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mrs R provided further comments which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note the additional points raised by Mrs R.

In summary Mrs R said:

• That the Administrator admitted to the maladministration. Further, both the Administrator and Employer had the option to make an adjustment and apply the 85 year discretion. However, both did not fully explore the option and focused purely on affordability with no consideration on the personal impact on her.

Ombudsman’s decision Regarding Complaint 1, Mrs R was provided incorrect information in her 2019 ABS and it is not disputed that maladministration has occurred. However, as identified by the Adjudicator, neither the maladministration itself nor the Administrator's acknowledgment of it constitute an automatic entitlement to the incorrectly overstated benefits. She is only entitled to her benefits correctly calculated under the Scheme Regulations.

In some circumstances a member who has received incorrect information may be able to recover damages for negligent misstatement. However, it must have been reasonable for the member to have relied on the inaccurate information. In contrast to my Adjudicator, on balance I am not of the view that it was reasonable to rely on the 2019 ABS. It contained the Disclaimer. This made it clear that the content was for information only, and that the final level of benefits would only be calculated when Mrs R claimed them. She was invited to request a deferred retirement quote if she wanted to retire on her 55th. On that basis, I am not of the view that it was reasonable to rely on that document alone, and make financial decisions, without first seeking those final figures in a deferred retirement quote. On that basis I find that Mrs R’s 17 CAS-80563-W3C7 claim for financial loss against the Administrator fails. I do not need to consider whether she suffered actual loss, although I note and agree with my Adjudicator’s view that she has in any event not provided evidence to suggest she has suffered actual financial loss as opposed to a loss of expectation.

Concerning Complaint 2 and the application of the Employer’s discretionary power, I find that it did consider the Mrs R’s personal circumstances and made a proper decision considering the factors set out in its policy. It used and considered sufficient the information available to it in making its decision. .

Therefore, I do not uphold Mrs R’s complaints.

Non-financial Injustice

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman 22 January 2026

18