CH-2024-000162 - [2025] EWHC 2237 (Ch)

Mrs Alexis joined the Scheme in May 1982. She became a deferred member in October 2006.

Aon is the Scheme Administrator. On 13 July 2018, Aon wrote to Mrs Alexis about her forthcoming retirement from the Scheme, setting out the options for her to receive her benefits, including an annual pension and tax-free lump sum payment. Aon also explained that a bridging pension would be payable to her and that this would “cease at State Pension Age”. Aon did not explain then the meaning of that term.

In October 2018, Mrs Alexis turned 60 and retired from the Scheme.

On 4 April 2019, Mrs Alexis wrote to Aon explaining that she had been advised that the bridging element of her pension would cease on her 65^th birthday. She took issue with this, noting that the Scheme wording provided that this would cease at her state pension age. Since the Government had increased her state pension age some years earlier, she claimed that she was entitled to be paid the supplement for longer than had been advised.

On 19 February 2020, Mrs Alexis registered a complaint under the Scheme’s two-stage internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP).

On 5 May 2020, the Trustee provided its stage one response to Mrs Alexis’ complaint. This explained that there were two possible interpretations for the expression “State pension age” in the 2001 Rules. The first was that this was fixed by reference to the legislation in place at the time the 2001 Rules were introduced. Another possible interpretation was that this was fixed by reference to the legislation in place at the time the member ceased to accrue benefits in the Scheme. The Trustee had historically administered the Scheme on the latter basis. In any event, either interpretation led to the same outcome for Mrs Alexis, namely a supplement payable until her 65^th birthday. The Trustee rejected the further possible interpretation that legislative amendments introduced after the 2001 Rules to increase state pension age meant that Mrs Alexis should receive the supplement until her actual state pension age of 66.

The Trustee therefore did not uphold Mrs Alexis’ complaint but recognised that the information provided to her around the time of her retirement was insufficiently clear and offered her £500 compensation in recognition of that issue.

Mrs Alexis did not accept this offer, confirming instead on 23 June 2020 that she wished her complaint to be moved to stage 2 of the IDRP.

On 4 February 2021, the Trustee issued its stage two response, affirming the stage one decision. The Trustee also explained that it had received further legal advice to the effect that, unless the 2001 Rules contained “express provision providing for statutory references to be interpreted as including subsequent amendments, they should be treated as fixed at the date the rules themselves were signed”. Nevertheless, the Trustee increased the compensation offer from £500 to £1,000 in recognition of the delay in its response.

Mrs Alexis then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman, following which, the offer of compensation was increased to £1,500.

An Adjudicator considered Mrs Alexis’ complaint, finding that further action was required by the Trustee. The £1,500 offer was sufficient recognition of Mrs Alexis’ distress and inconvenience. However, the Adjudicator was also of the view that the definition of “State pension age” in the 2001 Rules by reference to paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995 (Act) encompassed subsequent amendments to that legislation, including that by which Mrs Alexis’ state pension age had been increased to 66.

The Trustee did not accept the Adjudicator’s opinion and the matter was considered by the Ombudsman who confirmed his agreement with the Adjudicator and upheld Mrs Alexis’ complaint in the Decision.