High Court ruling on Hughes and Royal London
The Pensions Ombudsman, Anthony Arter, issued the following statement.
The High Court issued its judgment on Friday 19 February in the case of Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London, which was an appeal of my Determination of 30 June 2015.
The Pensions Ombudsman Service has around 200 live cases which are affected by the ruling, so we welcome the clarity that it brings to those using our Service and to the industry generally.
In particular, it provides instruction to trustees and administrators that, assuming the other requirements for a statutory transfer right are made out, members do not need to be in receipt of earnings from an employer sponsoring the occupational pension scheme to which they wish to transfer their pension. Earnings from another source are sufficient.
It seems likely that most transferring members will meet this requirement so, beyond verification of earnings and the provision of risk warnings, trustees and administrators will be conscious that under current legislation they cannot refuse such a transfer – even if they have significant concerns that it may be for the purposes of pension liberation.
Members with similar complaints will benefit from the ruling but should note that providers may need to seek further information and wish to ensure the risks are fully understood, before a transfer is made.
Related news
- 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.
- TPO sets out its position on trustees’ obligations when considering a member’s request to exercise a pre-2021 statutory transfer right from an occupational pension scheme.Date:The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has published a Determination concerning a pension scheme member (Mr D) who transferred from the British Steel Pension Scheme (the Scheme) to a small self-administered pension scheme in 2014. Mr D complained, some years later, that although this was in accordance with his wishes at the time, the transferring trustee (the Trustee) failed to carry out sufficient due diligence to check for scam warning signs, and then communicate the presence of those warning signs to him. As a result, Mr D claimed he had lost valuable retirement benefits.