Standard Life Personal Pension Plan · CAS-86211-C6L8

CAS-86211-C6L8

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs T

Scheme Standard Life Personal Pension Plan (the Plan)

Respondent Standard Life (SL)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mrs T’s complaint concerns SL’s decision to cease payment of her Contribution Protection Benefit (CPB) once she reached age 60.

Background information, including submissions from the parties The Plan is a defined contribution pension arrangement. The Plan’s Rules allowed for certain members to pay towards an insurance contract that would provide a ‘waiver of premiums’, such as CPB. The provisions relating to the CPB are set out in a separate policy document (the CPB Rules), a relevant extract of which is quoted in the Appendix.

The CPB was an optional feature of the Plan, under which SL would waive the requirement for a member to make regular contributions if they became disabled. This benefit ensured that the member’s pension would continue to grow in value as if contributions were still being made to the Plan. Under Section 12 of the CPB Rules, CPB would commence six months into the period of disability and could continue up to a maximum age of 60, although SL did introduce an enhancement that enabled the extension of this age.

1 CAS-86211-C6L8

On 10 February 2022, SL responded to Mrs T explaining that her CPB would cease at age 60 in accordance with the CPB Rules. It stated that, following the August 1999 enhancement, it had allowed certain Plan members to extend their CPB cover beyond age 60, but only where a member had selected a retirement age above 60, to the maximum of 65. SL also confirmed that the CPB was no longer being offered under the Plan and that it was unable to extend the benefit beyond age 60 in Mrs T's case.

In May 2022, Mrs T reached age of 60 and SL ceased the payment of her CPB.

2 CAS-86211-C6L8

Adjudicator’s View

When Mrs T joined the Plan, she selected the retirement age of 60, despite having the option to choose any age between 50 and 75. At the point she opted to pay additional premiums for CPB cover, Section 12 of the CPB Rules provided that the CPB would cease at age 60. However, in August 1999, SL implemented an enhancement that allowed members with a selected retirement age above 60 to align their CPB cover to that age, subject to a maximum of age 65.

Throughout the relevant period of Mrs T’s membership of the Plan, her retirement age remained 60. As such, the enhancement did not apply to her and therefore the date on which her CPB would cease was age 60. In light of this, the Adjudicator concluded that there had been no maladministration by SL. In her view, SL had acted in line with the CPB Rules when it ceased Mrs T’s CPB once she reached age 60, in May 2022. Furthermore, as SL no longer offered the CPB, there was no mechanism by which the CPB could be continued for Mrs T beyond that age.

3 CAS-86211-C6L8 Mrs T asserted that she had selected the retirement age of 60 to align with the SPA for women at the time. While the Adjudicator acknowledged this explanation, she stated that this did not affect the outcome of Mrs T’s case. The fact remained that she actively chose the retirement age of 60, even though it was not mandatory and she could have selected any age between 50 and 75. There was no reason for Mrs T to believe that her chosen retirement age had to match the SPA. The Plan was a private pension arrangement, managed independently by SL rather than the government.

Further, there was no evidence of gender-based discrimination. Prior to August 1999, the CPB could run to a maximum age of 60, regardless of the member’s gender. The enhancement introduced in August 1999, allowed all members, male and female, to align the cessation date of their CPB with their selected retirement age, provided that the retirement age was above 60. In the Adjudicator’s opinion, if SL had allowed Mrs T to retrospectively extend her CPB until age 65, this would have amounted to unequal treatment between members and could give rise to claims of discrimination. The Adjudicator concluded that SL had managed the Plan in accordance with its rules and the terms in effect at the relevant time. Consequently, it was her view that Mrs T’s complaint could not be upheld.

Mrs T did not accept the Adjudicator’s View, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mrs T contended that both the Adjudicator and SL’s central position seemed to be that once she had selected her retirement age, it was fixed and could not be changed for the purposes of her CPB. Mrs T considered that this position was unreasonable as when she joined the Plan at around age 30, she could not have anticipated what date she would wish to retire nor the circumstances surrounding her retirement. Mrs T has since extended her retirement date, and she continues to pay pension contributions past age 60. She said the fact she was not required to retire from the Plan at 60 proves that the retirement age she originally selected was not fixed. So, the CPB should also have continued, as it is an inherent part of the Plan.

While I have considered Mrs T’s comments, I find that they do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s View.

Ombudsman’s decision Mrs T’s complaint concerns SL ceasing her CPB when she reached age 60.

I acknowledge Mrs T’s personal circumstances and the impact her ill health has had on her ability to work. However, my role is to determine whether SL has administered the Plan in accordance with the relevant rules and if there has been any maladministration. In short, I find SL has administered the Plan correctly.

The CPB Rules originally established that CPB would cease at a maximum age of 60. However, a member’s selected retirement age could be higher. This meant that there may be a gap between when CPB came to an end and an individual’s actual selected retirement age in the Plan. As a result, later some Plan members were offered the opportunity to extend their CPB cover from 60 up to a maximum age of 65, allowing 4 CAS-86211-C6L8 members to align the CPB end date and their selected retirement age. Mrs T said she was not informed about this. However, the enhancement was offered only to those individuals who had selected a retirement age greater than 60, and Mrs T had selected a retirement age of 60, so was already covered up to this age. As such, I find it is reasonable that SL did not offer her the CPB enhancement, as with the retirement age she had selected, she would not be eligible to receive it.

While I understand Mrs T’s contention that her retirement date should not be fixed, it is important to note that she selected the retirement age of 60 at the outset. Mrs T said she originally chose age 60 to align with her SPA at the time. However, she was free to choose a different age when she joined the Plan and/or change this age thereafter. She did not seek to change it until January 2022, when she was only a few months away from what would have been her retirement, and following the submission of her CPB claim. Consequently, I find that the cessation of Mrs T’s CPB at age 60 reflects the terms agreed upon by Mrs T when she joined the Plan, and opted for CPB cover., Accordingly, there has been no maladministration in how SL has administered her benefit.

I am also not persuaded that the way in which SL has administered the CPB overall amounts to unlawful discrimination, as I find that the benefit has been dealt with in a gender-neutral manner. In accordance with the CPB Rules, the cessation of CPB at age 60 applied equally to all members regardless of gender. In August 1999, SL introduced an enhancement to extend CPB cover for certain Plan members. The conditions of this enhancement did not factor-in gender but were dependent solely on whether a member had selected a retirement age above 60, subject to a maximum of age 65.

Although I sympathise with Mrs T’s circumstances, her complaint is not upheld.

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman 26 February 2026

5 CAS-86211-C6L8 Appendix

6 CAS-86211-C6L8

7