Universities Superannuation Scheme (PO-8920)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

Mr E’s complaint against USS Ltd and the University, is partly upheld, but there is a part of the complaint I do not agree with. To put matters right (for the part that is upheld), USS Ltd shall review its 2008 decision not to award Mr E total incapacity benefits. In addition, it shall pay Mr E £750 for distress and inconvenience.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr E has complained that his pension has not been calculated by reference to the pensionable salary agreed in 2010. He has explained that the University submitted a salary figure of £29,870, which was his 2009 salary, but USS Ltd used a 2005 figure of £25,195. He says this is contrary to the terms on which he accepted retirement. Mr E has complained that the University refused to pay backdated contributions which would have allowed the higher salary to be used.

Mr E says the use of his 2005 salary means that his pension is not fully index linked. He believes the decision not to index link his salary from 2005 may amount to discrimination. He argues that members suffering from ill health and/or disability should not be treated in the same way as members who take time out of employment for other reasons. He feels he has been penalised for delaying his retirement in the hope of being able to return to work.

Mr E says he was misled by annual benefit statements which led him to believe that the University was paying contributions towards his pension.

Mr E argues he was unable to return to his place of work because of harassment. He suggests that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for him to assume that the University was continuing to pay contributions. The University did not advise him about the effects of non-payment on his pension. He was satisfied by the statements from USS Ltd that all was in order. If he had been aware that it was not, he would have applied for ill health retirement; as he had done under his other pension scheme. As soon as he became aware, he immediately applied for ill health retirement.

Mr E says he cannot see why there is a problem with having a few hundred pounds per year added to his pension. He is of the view that USS Ltd should have required the University to stand by the incorrect information.

The University offered him ill health retirement based on his 2009 salary. It should be required to honour this.

If he had been aware his benefits would not be based on a 2009 salary, he would have continued to ask for workplace adjustments to be made in order to enable him to return to work.

Mr E has also complained about the delay in dealing with his ill health retirement. He considers there was medical evidence available when he first applied for ill health retirement which would have enabled his application to have been agreed in July 2008. He points out that an ill health retirement pension was paid from another pension scheme in 2006.