She was then asked to repay £96,320.
Her complaints to Teachers’ Pensions and the Department for Education eventually found their way to the Pensions Ombudsman.
No certainty on resolution
In summary, Mrs G’s argument was that she had been overpaid due to a mistake made by Teachers’ Pensions. She had taken all reasonable steps to query the figures and had been satisfied that the figures quoted were correct.
She subsequently spent significant sums of money that she would not otherwise have spent were she aware that the issue had not been resolved. Mrs G said she had acted honestly and in good faith, and Teachers’ Pensions had said nothing to indicate that it was not confident in the figures it provided.
Reviewing the case, the ombudsman reiterated that there are circumstances where the scheme would not have been obliged to seek repayment, such as where “change of position” is demonstrated.
Change of position occurs where the applicant can show that they detrimentally changed their position as a result of the overpayment, such as making irreversible expenditure on things they would not otherwise have spent money on.
Mrs G spent money on holidays, a cruise, a new kitchen, and a gift to her son that, she argued, she would not have made were she aware that her pension was still in doubt.
The ombudsman, however, found that Mrs G should not have relied on Teachers’ Pensions’ lack of contact with her when determining that the matter had been settled.
“Ultimately, the necessary investigation to determine the correct position was instigated, but at no point during the discussions do I consider that Mrs G was persuaded that the figures provided were correct,” Pensions Obudsman Anthony Arter wrote.
“While Mrs G does not have a defence from recovery, the events complained about amount to maladministration and will no doubt have caused Mrs G an exceptional level of distress and inconvenience,” he added.
“This is severely compounded by the fact that Teachers’ Pensions was given a very clear understanding that the situation was wrong and repeatedly failed to take appropriate steps.
“It is unfathomable how this was somehow left unresolved for so long with little attention seemingly being paid to the significance of the information provided by Mrs G.”
The ombudsman ruled that Teachers’ Pensions had “repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to investigate the information Mrs G had provided”, and thereby ordered it to pay her £3,000, or else to deduct that amount — with her agreement — from the £96,320 overpayment it is nonetheless allowed to pursue.
Leicester County Council fined
In the second case, the ombudsman ordered Leicester County Council to pay Mrs R £1,000 for “serious non-financial injustice” she suffered because of its failure to provide Teachers’ Pensions with correct salary data, leading to an overpayment.
