The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against the Railways Pension Trustee Company over its response to a member’s application for augmentation of her early retirement.

‘Ms O’ complained that the trustee had refused her request for pension augmentation, despite the fact that she suffers from severe depression and anxiety, and is in danger of losing her home.

TPO has now ordered the trustee to reconsider the matter and reach a fresh decision after taking into account all relevant evidence, before giving Mrs O a clear and detailed explanation of the reasoning behind its decision, as well as giving her an opportunity to present any fresh evidence that she wants the trustee to consider.

If Ms O is found to be due an enhanced pension, the ombudsman said such a pension should be backdated to the date of application, with any arrears paid as a lump sum with interest included.

The trustee was also instructed to pay Ms O £500 on account of the “significant distress and inconvenience she has suffered”.

She had applied for early payment of her deferred benefits on 6 July 2018, having joined the Clientlogic section of the Railways Pension Scheme in October 2003 when she had 13 years and 10 days of qualifying membership in the scheme.

The rules of the scheme dictate that early retirees could be subject to a reduction for early retirement on ‘schedule 8’ terms, which would provide improved retirement factors.

Ms O applied for retirement under the schedule 8 terms, with the decision of whether to grant the request lying with the scheme’s Trustee Case Committee (TCC).

The applicant 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 which showed payments were significantly in arrears.

However, the minutes from a TCC meeting on 21 November 2018, during which Ms O’s application was considered, stated “…on the evidence provided, there was no reason through particular need or other exceptional circumstance to grant preferential terms…”

The applicant appealed against the committee’s decision, providing further medical information after being admitted to hospital on 18 February 2019.

The committee’s decision remained unchanged, with the TCC arguing during a stage 2 appeal in April 2019 that it did not consider the medical evidence enough to suggest Schedule 8 reduction factors should be applied.

During the course of a further review, which the TCC agreed to during the ombudsman’s investigation, Ms O provided more detail of her financial situation, explaining that her mortgage payments remained in arrears and she was at risk of losing her home.

She had also fallen behind on council tax, utility bills and water rates, said she was unable to eat on a regular basis due to lack of income and had to rely on food bought by friends and family as her only source of income was her pension and universal credit.

The ombudsman found that the documentation provided TCC gave no hint as to how the TCC had reached its decision to turn down Ms O’s applications, with no record of questions asked to Ms O about her financial position and no expert advice sought to discuss her medical evidence.

The adjudicator noted that a medical professional had been present for a portion of the 21 November 2018 meeting, but had left before Ms O’s application was first considered.

The ombudsman concluded that, despite the TCC having considered Ms O’s application three times, it was “not at all evident” that the trustee had considered these applications correctly.

Share Story: