UK: Pensions Update - Autumn 2011

Last Updated: 22 November 2011
Article by Caoimhe O'Neill and Michael Jones

A new session means new legislation and case law. In this month's bumper issue we cover: the Pensions Act 2011, Nortel, the benefits of an "ignorance" defence and various other practical and legal nuggets for you to store away for Winter.

Lehman/Nortel court of appeal Judgment

On 14 October the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court, handed down in December 2010, that where a Financial Support Direction (FSD) is issued against a target company by the Pension Regulator following an insolvency event, the costs of complying with it would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation. The effect of this is that the expense must be paid before any distributions to preferred creditors, floating charges and unsecured creditors,thus giving the FSD super priority.

The Court of Appeal has held that, where the Pensions Regulator issues an FSD to a company after that company enters administration, the liability under any subsequent Contribution Notice will rank as an expense of the administration. The court held that, if a statute imposes a financial obligation that arises after the administration or liquidation of a company and that liability is not otherwise provided to be provable as an unsecured debt, it will rank as a necessary disbursement and an expense of the relevant insolvency process.

Therefore this decision needs to be a factor in any corporate restructuring strategies adopted where a distressed company operates a defined benefit occupational pension scheme.

Equity treats as done what ought to have been done

The High Court has given judgment in HR Trustees Ltd v Wembley plc (in liquidation) and another (still to be reported). The case centred around the validity of an amendment made to a scheme operating under standard Legal & General rules. The rules included a requirement for the trustee to "forthwith declare" amendments in writing. The key issue for the court was whether the trustees had indeed properly declared the amendments. In this case the amendment was designed to reduce the annual rate of increase applying to pensions in payment for future service from 5% fixed to LPI capped at 5%. The court concluded that the amendment was valid even without the declaration as the court applied the maxim that equity "treats as done that which ought to have been done". When we have more details on this case we will let you know its wider application.

Incapacity, its always better to ask further questions

The Pensions Ombudsman's determination in the case of Middleton is further proof of the need for trustees to fully investigate a member's condition before reaching a decision as on ill- health application.

Mr Middleton was a member of the NHS Pension Scheme. In 2008 he applied for ill-health early retirement on the basis that his depression and blackouts meant he was permanently incapable of carrying on his normal employment. The trustees, in accordance with the Schemes definition of incapacity, sought medical evidence with respect to the various different conditions. The medical evidence indicated that no firm diagnosis had been obtained in respect of the blackouts, and that the medication was working to alleviate the symptoms of depression. However, neither pieces of advice specifically addressed whether the conditions were firstly, incapacitating the member and more importantly, likely to be permanent to a normal retirement date. The Ombudsman found that the trustees had wrongly concluded that because the medical advice suggested that there was no firm diagnosis and currently no further need for the medical assessment, the member had not met the Schemes definition. The trustees had failed to fully address their minds and therefore the medical evidence to the question of permanence. The Ombudsman therefore redirected the trustees to reconsider the matter.

We are not surprised by the outcome of this case. While disputes to the Ombudsman in respect of illhealth early retirement are frequent, it is generally a failure by the trustees to apply the schemes rules properly and consider full medical advice that trips trustees up. The case further highlights the need for trustees to fully address their minds to their schemes definitions of incapacity and, as in this case, to address the minds of the medical practitioners giving the reports to the relevant definitions. Where you have a mismatch between the definition and the medical findings, it is likely the matter can be re-opened by the Ombudsman. Trustees should therefore ensure that their medical practitioners are aware of the relevant definitions on which they are being asked to comment upon and that the trustees, when reviewing the matter, are in possession of both full and complete medical evidence and medical evidence that addresses the areas upon which they make their decision.

Ignorance is no defence

The first tier tax Tribunal gave its decision in Scurfield v Revenue & Customs in relation to a late application for protection against the lifetime allowance charge.

Mr Scurfield had previous been a Director of Norwich Union until his retirement in 1992. He was also a former President of the Institute of Actuaries. He had been drawing a pension since before the introduction of the A Day changes, and he had also been working part-time and contributing to a personal pension scheme. In September 2010 he applied to register for primary and enhanced protection against the lifetime allowance charge even though the deadline had passed on 5 April 2009. Mr Scurfield was therefore subject to a 55% Annual Allowance Tax Charge of his lump sum on the benefits under the second pension because the value of his first pension was in excess of the lifetime allowance. Mr Scurfield tried to argue that, as he was a pensioner, he was not connected to the world of finance and therefore, as he did not have a financial adviser in 2006, he was without expert advice and had no reasonable way of understanding the complexity that was the revised tax legislation. He tried to argue advice from previous tax case law that because the change related to complex technical rules the general proposition that ignorance of the law is not defence should not apply.

The Tribunal found that the A Day changes were very much in the public domain and had been so for five years before the deadline passed. Therefore as Mr Scurfield had all of the basic knowledge of finance? he should have, at some point, noted either through the popular press or otherwise the introduction of the lifetime allowance and the consequences for his personal financial affairs. Given that the individual was a former actuary, it is difficult to say whether an individual with no knowledge of pension matters or complex financial affairs would be able to argue that the introduction of the lifetime allowance charges fell within the more technical matters defence. However, it does further show that it is often very difficult to argue ignorance for matters that have been in the public domain for a long period of time.

PPF warns against trustees seeking missing beneficiary insurance for FAS cases

On 23 August 2011 the PPF published advice to trustees regarding whether it will be prudent to them or not to seek missing beneficiary insurance for FAS 1 cases. The advice, available at http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk/FAS/ FASNews/Pages/FASNews.aspx states that in most cases the PPF does not believe that trustees need to seek missing beneficiary insurance and, before they do seek it, they should seek advice from the PPF.

The dangers of issuing incorrect benefits forecasts

In this case Oxford County Council had issued an incorrect summary of pension benefits on redundancy to Mr Wilson which he then relied on. Following a merger of Council services, Mr Wilson was one of two applicants for a post which he knew was going to one or the other. He knew that if he didnt apply for that post there was also a part-time post he could apply for and it was in the context of understanding the financial consequences of taking the part-time post that he had sought the redundancy forecast. Unfortunately for Oxford CC, they had forgotten to take into account the fact that the minimum pension age for Mr Wilson would be 55 as he would be retiring after April 2010. He therefore could not seek the reduced redundancy pension that was contained within the forecast. Relying on the incorrect forecast, Mr Wilson did not apply for the full-time post and instead sought the part-time post. The Ombudsman found that Mr Wilson clearly relied on the incorrect benefit statement, to his detriment, and had therefore not applied for a role which he had a 50/50 chance of obtaining. His actual employer, who had passed on the benefit statement while being in possession of the facts which would have made it capable of understanding that the statement issued by Oxford CC was incorrect, was not found guilty of misdirection. The Ombudsman did not believe that the actual employer had a duty to review the early retirement redundancy forecast.

The damages that were awarded against Oxford CC were to compensate Mr Wilson for his loss of earnings to age 65, including future pension accrual at the level of the redundancy package he opted for on the basis of the incorrect information.

This is a further case which shows that where an individual can prove that he relied to his detriment on the incorrect statement issued, the party issuing the incorrect information will be held liable for the direct loss that follows. In this particular case, the measure of quantifying the loss by reference to the chance of obtaining the position was very easy to calculate since there were only two candidates applying for one job. However, in circumstances where more individuals are potentially in line for redundancy, the loss of a chance will be more difficult to assess.

Check your scheme rules

On 1 September 2011 the Deputy Ombudsman found that where an employer had offered appropriate alternative employment to an applicant for an incapacity pension, the trustees must ensure that the employer applied the scheme rules correctly.

This case is centred around the new Airways Pension Scheme and a British Airways flight crew member who, although based in Heathrow, lived in Liverpool. The requirements of the incapacity rule applied if the individual was prevented from carrying out appropriate alternative employment where it is offered by the participating employer. The rule defined appropriate alternative employment as being employment which in the opinion of the principal employer is suitable and reasonable employment, taking into account the members skills and current salary level. In BAs case it had also issued guidance on its llhealth policy which states that it considered suitable alternative employment as being where the persons work is the same or within a reasonable distance. The guidance suggested that affected individuals would have their cases reviewed by an occupational health specialist, which had not happened in this case.

In his decision, the Deputy Ombudsman found that while the rules themselves did not require BA to take into account location, the issue of the guidance, (even after the decision?), which did talk about distance, would suggest that location had always been a factor taken into account. In addition, if location was irrelevant, there was nothing to stop BA offering individuals employment in far flung locations which was non sensical in the context of an individual suffering from incapacity.

BA was therefore guilty by administration as it should have asked its expert to consider whether Ms Green was fit for her normal duties and then separately, if she wasnt fit, whether the alternative employment could be found, taking into account the travel difficulties. The Ombudsman found that the trustees should have reviewed the employers decision to ensure that it complied with the schemes rules. A failure to do so was held to be maladministration. The decision was therefore required to be reviewed again.

In our view this is a rather odd decision as far as it applies to the trustees. While trustees would only normally be required to ask the employer to confirm that the employment offered was suitable and reasonable, they would not normally be required to form their own view as to its suitability. In our view trustees cannot be held responsible for decisions made by other parties and, given that decisions such as reasonableness are subjective, it would be nearly impossible for them to conclude that the employers decision was reasonable without reviewing all the evidence, which they have actually no right to see in the first place.

Delay to new employer debt regulations

The Government announced in September that the amendments to the employer debt regulations aimed at introducing "flexible apportionment arrangements" are likely to be delayed until December 2011 (from 1 October 2011 expected launch date).

The original proposals, which were published for consultation in June 2011 and reported in our June Newsletter, are designed to allow an employer who ceases to participate in an ongoing multi-employer scheme the option of apportioning its accrued liabilities in the scheme among the remaining employers provided certain conditions are met, and without the need to calculate an employer debt. The amended regulations are also anticipated to include an extension to the "period of grace" during which an employer can cease to have active members, and then employ an active member before an employer debt is triggered.

A copy of the Governments statement can be found at www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/statement-of-newregulation- dwp-2011.pdf

Government launches consultation to reduce pension levies

On 7 November the Department for Work and Pensions launched a consultation seeking views on the draft Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Levies - Amendment) Regulations 2012, which would make changes to the rates of the general levy and the Pension Protection Fund administration levy for 2012/13 onwards. The intention is that the regulations will come into force on 1 April, 2012 with comments on the consultation required by 30 January 2012.

The general levy is a levy on occupational and personal pension schemes which provides for all of the administration costs of the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) and the Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and some of the administration costs of the Pensions Regulator (TPR). The general levy excludes the Regulators costs in relation to compliance with new duties introduced for workplace pension schemes via the Pension Act 2008. The consultation is looking to reduce the levy rate by at least 12% from 2012/13.

The PPF administration levy is a levy on occupational pension schemes eligible for the Pension Protection Fund (not the Financial Assistance Scheme) and provides for the administration costs of the PPF in respect of the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund (FCF).

The consultation looks to reduce the PPF levy by at least 25%. This is largely because legislative changes made in 2008 and 2011 and consolidated in the Pension Protection Fund (Prescribed Payments and Investment Costs – Amendment) Regulations 2011 mean that since April 2011, certain costs have no longer been met by the PPF administration levy income, but are now funded out of the Protection Fund itself. The DWP considered that if the PPF were a pension scheme the activities that give rise to these costs would be charged to the scheme so should therefore not form part of the PPF levy.

This is welcome news as these changes, if enacted, should lead to a reduction in scheme expenses and therefore, for defined benefit scheme, an improvement in their funding position.

Useful link

A copy of the consultation can be found at:

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/occ-pen-levies-regs-2012- consultation.pdf.

Pensions act 2011 receives royal Assent

On 3 November 2011 the Pensions Bill became the Pensions Act 2011.

Key changes were:

Money Purchase Benefits

A new provision that went into the Act at the last minute was a new definition of Money Purchase Benefit which has been inserted into new Section 181B of the Pensions Scheme Act 1993. This new definition is the Governments reaction to losing the Supreme Court decision in Houldsworth and another v Bridge Trustees Ltd and another [2011] UKSC 42. (see the July newsletter).

The government indicated that as a result of the Supreme Courts judgement, certain pension schemes that previously would have been considered as hybrid schemes fell outside of the employer debt/scheme funding legislation as they would be classified as money purchase schemes and therefore also fall outside of the PPF. The Pensions Act 2011 now amends the definition of Money Purchase Benefits so that it is A benefit other than a pension in payment falls within this section if itsrate or amount is calculated solely by reference to assets which (because of the nature of the calculation) must necessarily suffice for the purposes of its provision to or in respect of the member.

The DWP indicated that the term "money purchase benefits" should therefore only refer to benefits where there is no risk of a funding deficit. The DWP said that, without the changes, "anomalous results" could have arisen whereby schemes would have been unable to pay out benefits that had always been considered money purchase in nature, but equally these would not have been protected by the PPF.

The changed legislation also means that a defined contribution scheme that provides for pensions in payment out of scheme assets will also not be considered a money purchase scheme providing money purchase benefits, because of the potential for the underlying assets to mismatch the benefit.

The amendments, when they are enacted, will have retrospective effect from 1 January 1997. However to avoid schemes that have already wound up being required to re-open historic matters, the amendments include a power for the DWP to make transitional provisions in relation to past decisions that cannot practically be revisited. The DWP plans to consult on draft regulations making transitional and other consequential changes in the near future.

State Pension Age

The Government brought in transitional measures that will reduce the additional period that women will have to wait before receiving their basic state pension.

The Act still maintains equalisation of state pension age at 65 by November 2018, but then phases in the transition from 65 to 66 more slowly. Therefore, the state pension age reaches 66 in October 2020 instead of April 2020. The government said that the amendment will mean the maximum delay before a woman receives her basic state pension will be reduced to 18 months.

Auto Enrolment

There is now a cap on the administration charges that can be levied on active and deferred members of a qualifying scheme under the Pensions Act 2008 at levels to be prescribed by further regulations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Caoimhe O'Neill
Michael Jones
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.