Skip to main content

Determination in respect of Mr E (PO-29198) – Recovery of overpayment by equitable set-off

Date:

This Determination (PO-29198) has now been published. The case involved complaints made by Mr E against Teachers’ Pensions (TP) and Islington Borough Council (the Council), resulting from TP’s claim that his pension from the Teachers Pensions Scheme (the Scheme) had been overpaid, and its request for the return of the overpaid amounts.

The Ombudsman partly upheld the complaints against TP and the Council, finding that Mr E did not have any defences available to the recovery of the overpaid funds, but both respondents had caused him distress and inconvenience.

In his conclusions, the Ombudsman considered that TP was relying on equitable set-off as the legal basis for recovering the overpayments.

Equitable set-off operates in a similar way to equitable recoupment. However, equitable recoupment is a principle that applies to trustees, and the Scheme was a statutory unfunded scheme with no trustees and no trust, so recoupment was not available to TP. Mr E’s pension entitlement and the overpayment were cross-claims between Mr E and TP, so the Ombudsman concluded that TP could rely on equitable set-off as the basis for recovery of the overpayment.

The Ombudsman considered whether any defences to recovery were available to Mr E, determining: 

  • As an equitable self-help remedy, equitable set-off is not subject to a six-year limitation period under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. In any event, all of the overpayments to Mr E were made within six years of his complaint, so he could not rely upon the limitation period under section 5 as a defence.
  • The necessary elements were not present for a valid defence of “change of position”, estoppel or contract.
  • TP should consider Mr E’s evidence for financial hardship.

The Ombudsman directed that:

  • TP should recover the overpayment through a mutually acceptable payment plan.
  • TP should pay Mr E £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience caused.
  • The Council should pay Mr E £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

Related news

  • Pro Bono Week: Interview with Patricia Critchley of Slaughter and May
    Date:
    The Volunteer Adviser Programme has been around for over 40 years helping members of the public to informally resolve problems with their occupational and personal pensions. Our volunteers which include pension professionals from the legal industry resolve over 80% of the cases they receive. In 2025, international law firm Slaughter and May decided to partner with The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) to support its volunteer programme. Today we are interviewing Patricia Critchley who is Senior Counsel at Slaughter and May and a pro bono volunteer for TPO.
  • Operating Model Review 2025/26 - Off to a flying start…
    Date:
    In this blog mid-way through 2025/26, the Pensions Ombudsman, Dominic Harris, looks back on the achievements of the Operating Model Review programme and our priorities going forward.