Serco Pension and Life Assurance Scheme Section F (CAS-11778-X7B6)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

The complaint is not upheld against the Respondents because:-

The Respondents have correctly interpreted and applied the relevant SPLAS Rules and legislative provisions. Mr Y has no entitlement, under the SPLAS Rules, or any of the legislative provisions, or any provision or agreement outside those provisions, to an unreduced early pension from SPLAS arising from either: the transfer of his employment from Serco Limited to Energy, Safety and Risk Consultants (UK) Limited (ESRC) and ESRC’s subsequent sale to AMEC; or his later redundancy from ESRC. 

The aim of the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/346) (the Protected Persons Regulations), was to protect a protected person, such as Mr Y, from being worse off as a consequence of the transfer of their employment. That aim did not extend to ensuring that the protected person was, or could be, better off as a consequence of such a transfer. 

In accordance with that aim, Mr Y could have maintained the same level and structure of benefits had he opted to transfer his accrued pension under SPLAS to the AMEC Staff Pension Scheme (the ASPS) within two years of his employment having transferred to ESRC. The right to do so, under Regulation 6(5) of the Protected Persons Regulations, is a central feature of those Regulations. Had Mr Y exercised that right, he would have been entitled, on his redundancy from ESRC, to an unreduced pension in respect of all of his pensionable service, spanning his employment by Magnox and all subsequent employers. However, he did not do so.

I have not found that any of the Respondents made assurances to Mr Y that he would be entitled to an unreduced pension on redundancy from ESRC.

Complaint summary

Mr Y’s complaint is that he has not received early payment in respect of his deferred pension benefits held under SPLAS following his redundancy from AMEC. He believes he would have received these pension payments had his employment not been transferred from Magnox. Mr Y believes that the Respondents have incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant SPLAS Rules and are in breach of the statutory, common law and contractual obligations they owe him. 

Mr Y is seeking:-

Early payment of his deferred pension in SPLAS (whether from SPLAS or by payment outside SPLAS by any of the Respondents) from the date of his redundancy from AMEC which was 2 November 2015, until his normal pension age (NPA) of 60 in SPLAS.

Immediate payment of lump sums (3 times annual scheme pension plus his additional voluntary contributions).

Interest at the rate of 8% on the lump sum referred to in paragraph 2.2 above and monthly pension payments since 2 November 2015.

Excess tax costs as a result of back payments in one financial year of income due in previous financial years.

The net amount he receives, after tax, from his employer to be the same as he would have received had the monies been correctly paid in the first place if he finds new employment.

Compensation for time spent and the significant distress and inconvenience he has experienced trying to get this complaint resolved.