Advice/ guidance regarding a TPA Pension regulations grey area

Bookworm23

Reading previous threads, I am aware that some contributors have considerable experience working in pensions, and I hope they can advise; a retired teacher friend who had been financially interdependent and co-habiting with her partner for many years, became ill last year; having been married many years earlier, she went about obtaining a copy of the decree absolute and booked a formal civil partnership ceremony at the local town hall. Her intention was to enable her partner to qualify for family benefits in relation to her Teachers' Pension on the basis of the regs applying to civil partners.

Sadly, owing to an unfortunate medical error (acknowledged in the inquest report), her life was brought to an untimely end shortly before the date of the ceremony. Having been turned down initially by the TPA,  her partner later appealed to the TPA,  explaining the sequence of events and unfortunate circumstances (all of which could be evidenced, through for example inquest reports etc), but was again turned down on the basis that as they were not legally civil partners, the agency was not required to follow the regulations that apply to family benefits.

Although technically this must be correct, I wondered whether experienced members of the forum feel that there is any scope for further appeal, on the basis that this is a grey area. The teacher member's intentions on behalf of her long term partner, as demonstrated by her actions (which can be evidenced) were clear, and it was someone else's error that prevented her wishes coming to fruition. Two possible courses of action might be to register a formal complaint to the TPA, or to go to the Pensions Ombudsman. As a retired teacher myself, I have access to the TPA site and I cant see anything there about any appeals process. I also spoke to their helpline (extremely difficult to get through to) and they were vague, but when pushed, mentioned the possibility of registering a complaint. However there was no mention of this in the letter declining the appeal. 

Any advice would be valued

molerat

It is not really a grey area, the rules are quite clear and ifs / buts / could have beens don't really come into it. There is some scope though

If you’re neither married nor in a civil partnership but have a partner, as long as they meet the qualifying criteria (see below) they will receive a pension after you die.

A partner will qualify for a pension only if you have two years’ or more pensionable service from 1 January 2007, you have lived together for a continuous period of at least two years immediately prior to your death and the following criteria is met:

1. you were able to marry or form a civil partnership with your partner;
2. you and your partner were living with each other as if you were a married couple or civil partners;
3. neither you or your partner were living with a third person as if they were a married couple or civil partners; and
4. you and your partner were financially interdependent or your partner was financially dependent on you.

https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/members/once-retired/death-benefits.aspx

Complaints procedure

https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/public/contact-us/member-complaints-and-appeals.aspx

Bookworm23

Wow, amazing helpful response. Thanks - unfortunately she retired on 31 August 2007, so didn't qualify on the basis of 2 years pensionable service post 1 January 2007. I forgot to mention that in her will she included a clause stating her expectation and intention of forming a civil partnership with her partner

Marcon

Bookworm23 said:

Wow, amazing helpful response. Thanks - unfortunately she retired on 31 August 2007, so didn't qualify on the basis of 2 years pensionable service post 1 January 2007. I forgot to mention that in her will she included a clause stating her expectation and intention of forming a civil partnership with her partner

I'm afraid intentions rarely count for much where the rules of defined benefit pension schemes (especially public sector ones) are concerned. I appreciate that's a totally unhelpful comment in the context of your friend's sad circumstances, and I'm making the point only to flag it for anyone else reading this thread who might be 'thinking about...' rather than taking a particular action.

Bookworm23

So perhaps what I am asking, is whether a complaint on the basis that the rules are too rigid and inflexible to allow  for the members intentions to be honoured, is worth pursuing

Bookworm23

Or perhaps I mean that the application of the rules is too rigid and makes no allowance for extenuating circumstances

QrizB

I don't see any realistic prospect of a success with a complaint. The rules are clear, haven't changed for decades, aren't obviously discriminatory, and have been applied correctly.

Sorry.

DRS1

It is interesting that there is another page on the Teacher's Pension site which has a slightly different wording about the two years service requirement
Relationships | Life events | Working Life | Teachers' Pensions

This says

"If you’re in a relationship but not married or in a civil partnership, your partner can receive a long-term survivor’s pension if you have pensionable service on or after 1 January 2007 and you have at least two years service."

So it doesn't say that service needs to be after 1 January 2007

But maybe I am reading too much into that.

It doesn't help much because the benefit is "based solely on service from 1 January 2007 onwards" unless the member has paid some extra contributions to cover pre 2007 service.  I guess if the member had paid those contributions they would not have bothered about the civil partnership.

It sounds as if you need to find the actual regulations (and make sure they are the ones which apply for her in case what I have found is a guide to a later amended version) and see what they say exactly.  

Bookworm23

That difference in wording is interesting, but the rules do appear to be as quoted by rulerat, and the wording of the TPA's response to my friend confirms that interpretation. I don't think there is any scope for success within the rules, but I just wondered whether there are ever occurrences of what you might think of as discretionary awards outside the rules, on compassionate grounds. 

Marcon

Bookworm23 said:

That difference in wording is interesting, but the rules do appear to be as quoted by rulerat, and the wording of the TPA's response to my friend confirms that interpretation. I don't think there is any scope for success within the rules, but I just wondered whether there are ever occurrences of what you might think of as discretionary awards outside the rules, on compassionate grounds. 

In public sector schemes, discretions are kept to an absolute minimum - otherwise the schemes would simply be impossible to administer.

Setting precedents would be both dangerous (think of the complaints from other members who 'think' they know someone who....) and pile on the cost to the taxpayer, who would have to fund this unexpected 'largesse'.

DRS1

Bookworm23 said:

That difference in wording is interesting, but the rules do appear to be as quoted by rulerat, and the wording of the TPA's response to my friend confirms that interpretation. I don't think there is any scope for success within the rules, but I just wondered whether there are ever occurrences of what you might think of as discretionary awards outside the rules, on compassionate grounds. 

I think you know you're unlikely to get anywhere with this.  The Trustees or whoever runs the TPS can't just make things up.  If you want to argue that they should exercise a discretion in favour of the partner you are going to have to find a rule in the scheme that gives them that discretion and then you'd need to give them a reason to exercise it in the partner's favour.

The other thought (and way outside my experience) is that you talk about a medical error causing the member's premature death.  Is anyone thinking of taking legal action as a result?  Could the loss of the partner's pension be a head of loss in any such legal action?  Maybe it would be too remote or not foreseeable but it is just a thought.  I am sure there are some lawyers out there who specialise in such claims.