West Midlands Pension Fund · CAS-95504-W6C2

CAS-95504-W6C2

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr S

Scheme The West Midlands Pension Fund (the WMPF)

Respondents City of Wolverhampton Council as administering authority of the WMPF (the Fund)

Outcome

Complaint Summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-95504-W6C2 The Fund considered that there was no error or oversight on its part as it complied with statutory requirements when implementing the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) Rectification. In addition, it reiterated that it took the discretionary decision not to recover prior overpayments and provided six months’ notice to Mr S of the changes to his future pension.

According to the Fund, Mr S benefited – as he received £1,123.35 more than he should have received.

2 CAS-95504-W6C2 Adjudicator’s Opinion

• The Adjudicator accepted that there would have been no need to reduce Mr S’ pension going forward if the error had been identified before Mr S’ pension had been put into payment. This was only because his pension would always have been paid at a lower level.

• It was also understood that from 11 April 2022, due to the inflation protections within the WMPF, Mr S’ pension rose in line with the cost of living to £24,428.06, higher than his pension of £24,102.80, prior to the adjustment.

• Given that overall Mr S benefited by £1,123.35, it is unlikely that the Pensions Ombudsman would make an award that exceeded this amount.

• However, on further investigation the Fund confirmed to the Adjudicator that the error, identified during the GMP reconciliation exercise, stemmed from not implementing a GMP notification from HMRC in July 2014.

3 CAS-95504-W6C2 Mr S did not accept the Adjudicator’s opinion, or the letter of apology from the Fund. The complaint was passed to me to consider.

Mr S provided further comments in response to the Opinion. In summary, he said:-

• The Fund, through its inefficiency in not implementing the July 2014 notification from HMRC, have caused this issue. The Fund is reluctant to admit and apologise for an error entirely of its making.

• The Fund has not followed its own IDRP process by reducing his pension before the outcome of the IDRP was made known to him.

• The payroll information for March 2022 was available to members well before the issue of the Fund's IDRP letter to him of 22 March 2022. This is another matter the Fund is reluctant to admit and apologise for.

• In addition, the Fund omitted to inform the Panel of the above matters which were crucial in allowing a balanced and just decision.

• He is not aware of any correspondence in which the Fund admits and apologises for its errors. This is the recourse his seeking.

I have considered Mr S’ further comments, but they do not change the outcome, I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

not implementing a GMP notification from HMRC I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint. 4 CAS-95504-W6C2

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman

31 May 2025

5