The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a GMP overpayment recovery complaint against the Cabinet Office, although a further judicial review of the broader case is expected.

‘Mrs T’s’ complaint centred around the attempted recovery of GMP overpayments on injury benefits amounting to £4,108.81, which was revised down to £1,384.72.

The Cabinet Office has now agreed to waive recovery of the revised overpayment, with the deputy ombudsman agreeing that this was a “reasonable outcome”.

Mrs T was receiving injury benefits in relation to a traumatic incident in October 1993, which occurred during Mrs T’s employment as a nurse in the prison service, and had left her with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

She was later contracted out of the State Second Pension in respect of her membership of the NHS Pension Scheme, and reached state pension age (SPA) in 2005.

In January 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) notified the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) that Mrs T had a GMP in the scheme, amounting to £7.86 per week at SPA.

However, the notification of the GMP was sent to the PCSPS by mistake, rather than the NHS Pension Scheme administrators.

The error was eventually discovered in 2015 after Mrs T queried her tax status, and in January 2016, MyCSP informed Mrs T she would not receive any further GMP payments.

MyCSP was not the administrator in place at the time of the error itself in 2005.

Throughout the complaint process, the Cabinet Office acknowledged that GMP was not attached to Mrs T’s injury benefit as it was not a pension, explaining instead that the overpayment was caused by the DWP instructing Capita to pay the GMP.

It also accepted though that the overpayment was received in good faith, but maintained that as Mrs T had received monies she was not entitled to, it was the role of the internal dispute resolution (IDR) team to determine whether the overpayment should be recovered.

Mrs T’s appeal was turned down however, with the Cabinet Office stating that good faith alone was not sufficient defence against recovery of an overpayment.

The Cabinet Office clarified that there was a different route for appeals against repaying overpayments via the pensioner payroll team at MyCSP and the Civil Service Pension Finance Team (CSPF) of the Cabinet Office, and informed Mrs T that she may wish to write to MyCSP with any deference against overpayment, to then be reviewed alongside CSPF.

The Cabinet Office acknowledged that mistakes were made during the IDRP process, with MyCSP agreeing that Mrs T’s case should be referred under stage two of the IDRP, but notes of the telephone conversation failing to state what Mrs T was actually appealing against.

After taking into account the provisions of the Limitation Act, which applied to any overpayments made more than six years before 26 April 2019, the Cabinet Office also agreed to reduce the amount it was seek to £1,384.72.

However, Mrs T argued that the situation had forced her to remember a “time she thought was behind her”, prompting flashbacks from her PTSD and the incident of October 1993.

She also considered that both MyCSP and Capita mismanaged her data, which she said continues to cause her family significant distress and hardship.

The Cabinet Office subsequently offered to make a distress and inconvenience award of £650, to be offset against the revised debt.

However, the adjudicator’s decision argued that the Cabinet Office had failed to give “proper consideration to the negative impact recovery would likely have on Mrs T's wellbeing” when reviewing the appeal under the IDRP.

They also highlighted the time it took for the error to be discovered as an area of concern, stating that “with reasonable diligence, it would likely have been identified in 2005”.

The adjudicator recommended that the revised debt be reviewed on hardship grounds, with Mrs T given the option to offset the inconvenience award against the debt should this prove unsuccessful.

Whilst Mrs T agreed that the entire overpayment should not be paid back, she stated she could not accept the adjudicator’s opinion, with her full case expected to now go to judicial review.

The ombudsman's decision clarified: “Her whole case is very complex, difficult and has lasted many years without resolution.

"Rather than a review of her complaint relating to the overpayment of £4.104.81,a judicial review of her entire case is required.”

The deputy ombudsman, Karen Johnston, also reiterated this in her decision, stating that Mrs T has raised wider pension issues being dealt with separately by TPO.

Share Story: