Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme · CAS-73827-Z5V4

CAS-73827-Z5V4

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr B

Scheme Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1

GCHQ CAS-73827-Z5V4

2 CAS-73827-Z5V4

1 Lord Chancellor v McCloud & Ors, Sargeant and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Ors [2019] ICR 1489 2 Civil Service Pensions Scheme Rules

3 CAS-73827-Z5V4

4 CAS-73827-Z5V4

Following the complaint being referred to The Pensions Ombudsman, Mr B and GCHQ made the following submissions.

Summary of Mr B’s position Mr B only retired with the expectation of accessing his pension upon reaching Scheme A’s NRA of 65 in August 2020.

At no point was he informed of the transition of his pension benefits from Scheme A to Scheme B. Upon the mistake being discovered, he was automatically transitioned to Scheme B.

He was only made aware of the mistake and the change to his NRA five weeks before his retirement date in August 2020. He was not provided with an explanation or the opportunity to explore any redress. He feels that there was no consideration for the impact of the amended NRA or the impact to his financial circumstances. As such, he was denied any degree of protection to ensure sufficient time to plan for his retirement.

He believes that under the McCloud judgment and the respective Government Consultation exercise, he should have been offered the option to choose whether to be transferred to Scheme B or remain within Scheme A. Further, GCHQ’s mistake has affected his financial planning for retirement. He has had to rely on his savings and the financial support of his partner until his corrected NRA in August 2021.

He feels GCHQ’s offer of £500 is not sufficient. As compensation he is seeking the financial loss of the 1 year difference between Scheme A’s NRA (65) and Scheme’s B NRA (66) amounting to £3,982. Due to the duration of time that has passed, he acknowledges that it is no longer realistic for his pension benefits to be reverted back to Scheme A.

Summary of GCHQ’s position GCHQ have acknowledged and apologised for providing MyCSP incorrect information, which led to the failure to transfer his benefits to the correct Scheme B

5 CAS-73827-Z5V4 back in 2015 and resulted in Mr B receiving incorrect information in his benefit statements as to his expectant retirement age.

It further acknowledges that because of its mistake, Mr B was within weeks of his intended retirement date before it was discovered he was in the wrong Scheme and he was informed.

Upon the discovery of its mistake, remedial action was immediately taken to correct it. Mr B’s NRA increased from 65 to 66, which caused a loss of expectation to his retirement plans. However, he did receive a slight increase in his pension accrual rate from 2.3% to 2.32%.

While sympathetic, GCHQ and MyCSP are only able to provide Mr B with benefits in line with the Scheme Rules, thus transferring him from 1 April 2015 to Scheme B. It was unable to override the application of the presence test to return him back to Scheme A.

In recognition of the distress and inconvenience suffered by Mr B, GCHQ has offered £500 as compensation.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

6 CAS-73827-Z5V4

Mr B did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr B provided further comments which do not change the outcome. I largely agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and I will therefore only respond to the key points raised by Mr B and clarify certain points in the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

In summary Mr B said:-

• Due to GCHQ’s mistake, the deferral of his NRA has cost him the financial loss of a year’s pensionable income. He had no way to recover that income in any way.

• The issues in his working environment had no bearing whatsoever on his decision to retire. His decision was solely based on the incorrect NRA in August 2020 under Scheme A. Had he been provided with his correct NRA in August 2021, he would have extended his employment into 2020.

• He does not believe he was presented with an opportunity to cancel his retirement and resume employment. He finds it especially unlikely considering it was during the UK’s COVID-19 lockdown. He had already been out of employment for 10 months by the time GCHQ had identified the mistake and MyCSP rectified it.

• In conclusion, Mr B does not feel GCHQ’s compensation of £500 addresses the distress and inconvenience he has suffered as a result of its error. When the mistake was discovered in 2020, he felt that GCHQ did not take appropriate accountability for the mistake. He was made to feel not important and his financial loss of losing an entire year's income was treated as irrelevant. 7 CAS-73827-Z5V4 Ombudsman’s decision

8 CAS-73827-Z5V4

Therefore, I do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

Camilla Barry

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 11 September 2025

9