Railways Pension Scheme · CAS-29226-H0P2

CAS-29226-H0P2

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Ms O

Scheme Railways Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited (the Trustee)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties Ms O became a deferred member of the Clientlogic section of the Scheme on 9 August 2007, having joined service on 4 October 1993. She had 13 years and 10 days of qualifying membership in the Scheme.

1 CAS-29226-H0P2

The Trustee delegates decisions such as this to the Trustee Case Committee (the TCC).

The Declaration Form Ms O had to complete said “I understand that unless I can put forward relevant evidence, which is likely to be exceptional, then I should not expect to receive the benefits calculated on the Schedule 8 reduction factors”.

Ms O provided a statement outlining her circumstances, together with comprehensive details of her medical history, a financial summary of her income and expenditure, and copy letters from her mortgage provider showing payments were significantly in arrears.

Ms O’s application was considered by the TCC. Minute 18/98 of the TCC meeting on 21 November 2018 stated “…on the evidence provided, there was no reason through particular need or other exceptional circumstance to grant preferential terms…”

During the course of our investigation the TCC agreed to again review Ms O’s case. To support her claim, Ms O provided more detail of her financial situation. She said her mortgage payments remained in arrears and she was at risk of losing her home. She was also in arrears with council tax, utility bills and water rates. She said she was unable to eat on a regular basis due to lack of income and had to rely on food bought

2 CAS-29226-H0P2 by friends and family. Her only source of income was her pension and universal credit. Ms O also emailed a copy of a letter received from her mortgage provider which showed her case had been passed to its legal department.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

3 CAS-29226-H0P2

The Trustee did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider.

The Trustee provided further comments which do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and I will therefore only respond to the points made by the Trustee for completeness.

Ombudsman’s decision The Trustee said the TCC had considered Ms O’s application on three separate occasions, and on each one, found they did not have sufficient evidence to grant preferential treatment and terms to Ms O. It repeated it did not feel the evidence submitted showed a need for her to be treated differently to any other member of the scheme.

It added it wanted to highlight that, whilst it understood and sympathised with Ms O's position, her benefits are being paid in line with the Scheme Rules. Any change to the early retirement reduction factors is discretionary and never guaranteed.

Whilst I appreciate the additional efforts made by the Trustee and the TCC to consider Ms O’s application, the fact they have considered it three times does not amount to compelling proof that it followed the correct procedure.

I have to consider the merits of this case in light of the evidence presented and the Trustee has been unable to show that it took into account the legal principles as set out in the Adjudicator’s findings. It is therefore difficult to conclude that the decision made was a reasonable one.

4 CAS-29226-H0P2

Directions

• reconsider the matter and reach a fresh decision as to whether or not to award an enhanced early retirement pension in line with the principles, it must take account of all relevant evidence, disregard irrelevant evidence and the decision reached must not be perverse, that is to say the decision is one which no reasonable decision maker could have reached; and

• if it still finds that the evidence provided does not warrant an enhanced early retirement pension award: it must give Ms O a clear, detailed explanation of the reasons for its decision; the factors it has taken into account; and give Ms O an opportunity to present any fresh evidence that she wants the Trustee to consider before reaching a final decision.

The review should be initiated within 14 days of the date of this Determination. The Trustee shall provide Ms O with a decision or if this is not possible, inform Ms O of when its decision is likely to be made.

If Ms O is due an enhanced pension, then such a pension shall be backdated to the date of application with any arrears paid as a lump sum with interest calculated from date of application to date of payment. The interest shall be calculated at the base rate for the time being quoted by the Bank of England.”

5 CAS-29226-H0P2 Within 14 days of the date of this Determination, the Trustee shall pay Ms O £500 award in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 16 March 2020

6