Teachers pensions say my husband needs to repay £18000!

DRS1

xylophone said:

And the individual who made the error is likely to face some come back (maybe just more training but it will be a black mark on their record).

If the error was made fifteen years ago then the individual in question may long have gone to pastures new...... Very likely.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the administrators of pension schemes are (or are supposed to be) PROFESSiONALS.

Professionals should have (in my opinion should be legally required to have) insurance against any  professional mistakes.  Professionals do carry such insurance - it is even called Professional Indemnity Insurance. I admit I don't know if pension administration firms carry such insurance.

They are not expected to be omniscient or totally proof against error - insurance protects them and their clients from the results 

of any mistakes.  And the clients are protected by the duty of care which the professional owes to his clients.  If he gets things wrong he could be sued for negligence.

There may well be members of pension schemes who have the knowledge of every nuance of the rules and the capacity to 

check the (often complex) calculations.

I suspect that such people are in the minority.  a very small minority I would guess

Lay persons should not have to suffer from the mistakes of those who are paid to offer them their professional services.  But should they profit from those mistakes?

Oh and pedantic point: the administrators are providing their services to the Trustees NOT to the members.

I have used italics to add a few thoughts/replies.

I was just trying to point out that people were making various assumptions about what happens and then getting irate about it and sharing their thoughts on how it should be instead.  But they don't know that their assumptions are correct.

I will shut up now

LHW99

IMO one way would be that up to the standard 6 years statute of limitation, repayment over a reasonable timescale should be expected.

Beyond that, professional insurance should take over, thereby limiting the stress on someone who had to rely on the accuracy of the quote given.

Going forward from detection of the error correct annual pension should be paid.

While accepting that the scheme has a right to retrieve overpayments, knowing that if errors are not picked up within a reasonable time it becomes more difficult to do just might encourage a bit more due diligence. Underpayments could be treated similarly - scheme pays if picked up within 6 years, beyond that insurance chips in.

xylophone

Oh and pedantic point: the administrators are providing their services to the Trustees NOT to the members.

Then the service is supplied to the members at one remove? Members do not customarily deal with the Trustees in regard to the 

claiming and payment of their pensions.

From previous posts on this subject, I have the strong impression that the Administrators of Pension Schemes do not 

customarily have  Professional Indemnity Insurance. If they did, then it seems unlikely that they would need to demand 

repayment from a member?

With regard to a member's profiting from a mistake, since the mistake was not his, (and assuming that there was no reason for 

him to suspect an error, for example accepting a pension of £50,000 a year when during his working life he had earned no more 

than £20,000 a year) then so be it. 

In particular, expecting a person to accept that he needs to repay a large sum after a mistake made many years before seems to 

me grossly unfair.

Time for Pension Trustees to insist that the firms that they employ have PII?

DRS1

I think that when the administrator deals with a member they are doing so as the agent of the Trustees.  The relationship the member has is with the Trustees.  If the member wants to sue somebody he would sue the Trustees not the administrator.

The existing law does deal with both the issues you mention.  The change of position defence takes into account whether the member could reasonably have been expected to know the overpayment was not right and the Limitation Act deals with the many years ago problem (although it is perhaps not as black and white as some might like).

As for PII being the answer it wouldn't be an alternative to a claim for repayment from the member who has been overpaid.  The insurer would only cover what couldn't legally be recovered from the member.

xylophone

As for PII being the answer it wouldn't be an alternative to a claim for repayment from the member who has been overpaid.  The insurer would only cover what couldn't legally be recovered from the member.

In that case as you say, this type of insurance is not the answer. The insurance should be of a type to cover the administrator for having made an incorrect payment to the detriment of the  pension fund - thus the insurer should compensate the  pension fund for its policy holder's error?

At all events, I still say that it is unreasonable to expect a lay person to be penalised for a professional's mistake.