Refusal to grant mental health officer status – The case study of Mr T
Mr T was a member of the HSC Pension Scheme and his complaint was about the refusal of HSC to recognise his employment between 1984 and 1993 as eligible for mental health officer (MHO) status.
The Health and Personal Social Care (Superannuation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (the Regulations) set out the definition of a MHO. In particular, the Regulations state that the member must work full time on the medical or nursing staff of a hospital wholly or partly devoted to the treatment of people suffering from a mental disorder and their role must be all, or almost all, devoted to the treatment and care of mental health patients.
Mr T’s request for MHO status was rejected by HSC on the basis that before 1993 his employment was not hospital based. However, he did hold MHO status from 1993 onwards but had not yet built up enough years to be able to retire without being subject to an early retirement reduction.
The interpretation of the Regulations was central to this complaint. The general rule of statutory interpretation is that the words are given their plain and ordinary meaning.
The Regulations that govern the scheme require a worker to be part of the medical or nursing staff of a hospital. The Ombudsman determined that as Mr T worked in a community-based setting from 1984 to 1993, this was not hospital-based employment. The Regulations were not ambiguous and, therefore, HSC had not erred in its refusal not to award him MHO status for that period of employment.
Related determinations
Related case studies
Pension liberation transfer - The case study of Mr S
Mr S complained that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) allowed him to transfer from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) to the Capita Oak Pension Scheme (the Receiving Scheme).
Ill health – The case study of Mr M
Mr A was in receipt of an ill health pension after a cancer diagnosis in 2014.