Firefighters Pension Scheme · CAS-76722-Z3Z9

CAS-76722-Z3Z9

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr T

Scheme Firefighters' Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service (the Cheshire Service)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the salient points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

On 16 December 2002, Mr T was employed by the Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service (the Staffordshire Service) as a retained firefighter. As Mr T was not a wholetime firefighter, he was not eligible to join the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992 (the 1992 Scheme), a final salary occupational pension scheme.

On 1 March 2006, in Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority [2006]1 the Court of Appeal found that the difference in pay between full time and part time firefighters amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.

On 6 April 2006, the New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2006 (the 2006 Scheme) was established and the 1992 Scheme was closed to any new entrants. The 2006 Scheme is administered in accordance with the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme

1 Matthews & Ors v. Kent and Medway Towns and Fire Authority & Ors [2006] UKHL 8 (1 March 2006)

1 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 (England) Order 2006 (the 2006 Order). Mr T joined the 2006 Scheme as a retained firefighter.

On 16 April 2007, Mr T began a secondary period of employment with the Cheshire Service as a wholetime firefighter and joined the 2006 Scheme.

On 1 April 2014, after a settlement agreement was reached with the Government:-

• The Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Amendment) (England) Order 2014 came into force (the Amendment Order).

• The Amendment Order provided a number of changes to Schedule 1 of the 2006 Order. See appendix for extracts of the relevant amendments to the 2006 Order.

• In line with the requirements of the Amendment Order, the Modified Scheme was established for retained firefighters with pensionable service between 1 July 2000 and 5 April 2006, who were unable to join the 1992 Scheme.

• As the 1992 Scheme was closed, the benefits available under the Modified Scheme broadly mirrored those of the 1992 Scheme for eligible members.

• The eligibility requirements to join the Modified Scheme, as a special member, were:

o the member was employed as a retained firefighter between 1 July 2000 and 5 April 2006, while continuing in employment;

o elected to become a special member and agreed to pay retrospective contributions plus interest for the period of their employment as a retained firefighter (“retained period of employment”); or

o if a firefighter ceased to be a retained firefighter on or after 6 April 2006, but immediately thereafter, with no breaks in service, became a wholetime firefighter.

• Special members of the Modified Scheme were also afforded the same right to transfer in benefits from other pension arrangements to increase their pensionable service. Members were able to transfer benefits from the 1992 Scheme, and from the 2006 Scheme into the Modified Scheme.

• Part of the settlement agreement specified that the relevant authorities had from 1 April 2014 to 30 September 2015 to identify and inform individuals of their eligibility to join the Modified Scheme (the Remedy Period).

In 2014, the Staffordshire Service sent Mr T an expression of interest form to join the Modified Scheme. It provided him with an information leaflet on the eligibility criteria for joining the Modified Scheme and said that he should complete and return the form by 31 August 2014. He should also provide the details of his retained and wholetime employment.

2 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 In response, Mr T completed and returned the retained firefighter expression of interest form as he met the eligibility criteria for “retained special membership”.

On 31 June and 22 July 2014, the Cheshire Service posted a weekly bulletin signposting its firefighters to the employee intranet which contained information on the eligibility requirements to join the Modified Scheme. This included a guide to “the Firefighters Pension Scheme 2006 for retained Firefighters who are special members of the Modified Scheme”.

On 3 December 2014, the Staffordshire Service wrote to Mr T about his interest in joining the Modified Scheme. It provided him with a transfer leaflet and outlined three options as to how he could become a member of the Modified Scheme, which were:-

• Option 1: buy back service in the Modified Scheme only up to the date he joined the 2006 Scheme, or up until 31 March 2014, if he never joined the 2006 Scheme.

• Option 2: buy back service in the Modified Scheme, whilst also converting his membership in the 2006 Scheme into additional Modified Scheme membership.

• Option 3: buy back service in the Modified Scheme and, thereafter, converting the Modified Scheme service into the 2006 Scheme.

The transfer leaflet explained that if a member joined the Modified Scheme as a special member, they had the opportunity to transfer any external pensions into the Modified Scheme.

Mr T elected to join the Modified Scheme as a “retained special member”. Consequently, Mr T’s membership in the Modified Scheme covered his retained period of employment, with the Staffordshire Service, from 16 December 2002 to 6 April 2006. Mr T also elected to transfer his post 6 April 2006 retained pensionable service into the Modified Scheme from the 2006 Scheme.

Between 2018 and 2019, Mr T assisted a colleague with an application for a personal injury claim due to an on-duty accident. Mr T’s assistance progressed to also helping his colleague apply for ill health early retirement. In doing so, Mr T’s colleague provided him with information on his pensionable service and benefits. It was within this bundle of documents that Mr T noted that his colleague was afforded the opportunity to transfer his whole-time service from the 2006 Scheme, into the Modified Scheme. Mr T was not offered this opportunity.

On 2 January 2021, Mr T submitted a complaint under stage one of the Scheme’s internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP), and said, in summary, that:-

• In 2002, he began a period of employment as a retained firefighter for the Staffordshire Service. At the time he was unable to join the 1992 Scheme; however, he joined the 2006 Scheme when it was established.

• On 16 April 2007, he began a period of employment with the Cheshire Service, as a wholetime firefighter, and joined the 2006 Scheme. 3 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 • In 2014 he was offered, and accepted, the opportunity to join the Modified Scheme. This was after the introduction of the Amendment Order, in response to the outcome of the Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority [2006] court case.

• He converted his retained pensionable service in the 2006 Scheme into the Modified Scheme. He also paid backdated contributions to buy back pensionable service from 1 July 2000 to 6 April 2006 in the Modified Scheme.

• He recently became aware of colleagues who were afforded the opportunity to transfer their wholetime pensionable service into the Modified Scheme. He was not offered this same opportunity despite there being no difference in his circumstances compared to that of his colleagues.

In April 2021, the Cheshire and Staffordshire Service corresponded with each other about Mr T’s IDRP complaint. The Staffordshire Service provided copies of the letters and information that was available, and sent, to Mr T, in 2014, about the Modified Scheme. It also said that it understood that retained special membership in the Modified Scheme could only be linked with whole time service if:

• the firefighter left their retained role and took up a wholetime role the next day; or

• the firefighter was retained, but took up a wholetime role at the request of the same employing authority, thereby having two concurrent roles for the same authority.

On 4 May 2021, Deputy Chief Fire Office (the Deputy), on behalf of the Cheshire Service, provided his stage one IDRP response to Mr T and did not uphold the complaint. The Deputy’s response is summarised between paragraphs 19 and 31.

The benefits available under the Modified Scheme were comparable to those of the 1992 Scheme and the 2006 Scheme. In essence, the Modified Scheme was an accompaniment to the 2006 Scheme.

The Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority case resulted in the Amendment Order and the Remedy Period. During this time, fire authorities needed to identify and contact any affected members who were eligible to join the Modified Scheme.

The Amendment Order provided the fire authorities with the necessary discretion to extend the deadline, if it was not reasonably possible to comply with the Remedy Period.

Part 2, regulation 1A(1b)(iii) states that a retained firefighter, who became a wholetime firefighter, can only be eligible for special membership if the following criteria were met:

• they were employed as a retained firefighter before 6 April 2006, thereafter, becoming a wholetime firefighter; 4 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 • no breaks in employment between the change over from retained to wholetime firefighter service; and

• the retained employment was ended the day before they took up the wholetime role.

Mr T did not meet one of the criteria, under regulation 1A, as he continued in his retained role with the Staffordshire Service, after 6 April 2006, alongside his wholetime role with the Cheshire Service.

Regulation 5A(2)(b)(iii), of the Amendment Order, provided the relevant authority with the discretion to allow for a firefighter’s wholetime service to be included within the Modified Scheme. However, this was on the basis that the relevant authority required the firefighter to remain in a retained role, post 6 April 2006, while also taking up a wholetime role.

The Cheshire Service could not offer him the option to include his wholetime service in the Modified Scheme, as it did not employ him as a retained firefighter. It was the Staffordshire Service that employed him as a retained firefighter.

The circumstances of the colleagues, who were offered to aggregate their wholetime service into the Modified Scheme, were substantially different to Mr T’s own circumstances. This was because: he did not meet the eligibility requirements for this option; he did not elect to undertake this option before the deadline of 30 September 2015; and he was employed as a retained and wholetime firefighter by different authorities.

The Staffordshire Service employed him as a retained firefighter, so it was responsible for informing him of his eligibility to join the Modified Scheme as a retained firefighter special member, which it did. The Cheshire Service only ever employed him as a wholetime firefighter, and treated him the same as any other wholetime firefighter as he was offered the opportunity to join the 2006 Scheme.

The Staffordshire Service provided copies of the information that would have been made available to him in 2014. On the assumption that he received this information, it appeared that the Staffordshire Service had informed him of his options within the Remedy Period.

The Scheme’s IDRP policy said that complaints should be submitted within six months of the date the individual could reasonably have been aware of the matter in dispute. It believed that he had been aware of the matter in dispute for more than six years, since 2014.

The Staffordshire Service provided him with relevant information in 2014, which allowed him to join the Modified Scheme. At this time, the Cheshire Council also provided information on the Modified Scheme via its “green bulletin”. There was also information on the staff intranet under a section titled “Modified Firefighters’ Pension

5 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 Scheme (RDS)”. This contained copies of relevant guidance about the Modified Scheme.

Based on the exercises undertaken by the relevant fire authorities, and the information available to Mr T between 2014 and 2015, it was reasonable to conclude that he was well aware of the matter in dispute in 2014/2015. Consequently, he was technically out of time for his IDRP to be investigated; however, given the severity of the matter his case was fully investigated and responded to.

On 24 May 2021, Mr T emailed the Deputy and asked him if the Cheshire Service was “unwilling” or “unable” to action his request.

On 28 May 2021, the Deputy responded to Mr T and said that his position was made clear in the IDRP response. He added that it was clear that the deadline for transferring wholetime pensionable service into the Modified Scheme needed to be actioned before 30 September 2015. There was no available discretion to facilitate a request after this deadline.

Mr T’s submissions

He believed that the Cheshire Service had interpreted Part 11, regulation 5A(2b)(iii) of the Amendment Order incorrectly. It did not state that a firefighter’s retained and wholetime employment had to be under the same fire authority for that authority to exercise the discretion available to aggregate an individual’s pensions into the Modified Scheme.

He believed that the Cheshire Service held the necessary discretion, as provided by the Amendment Order, to aggregate his wholetime pensionable service in the 2006 Scheme into the Modified Scheme.

He provided witness statements from two colleagues who both confirmed that he was asked to stay on as a retained firefighter, for the Staffordshire Service. This was after he accepted his wholetime role with the Cheshire Service. This evidence mirrored the rationale used for two other colleagues who were also asked to stay on in their retained roles alongside their wholetime roles, whose wholetime pensionable service was aggregated into the Modified Scheme.

He noted that the Cheshire Service claimed that they could not have known about his previous service with the Staffordshire Service. However, the Cheshire Service required all employees who held secondary roles to confirm this on an annual basis. So, the Cheshire Service would have known about his retained role with the Staffordshire Service and should have informed him of the right to aggregate his wholetime service with his retained service under the Modified Scheme.

The Cheshire Service seemed to infer that it was within the Staffordshire Service’s ability to allow him to aggregate his wholetime pensionable service into the Modified Scheme. However, the Staffordshire Service was not his primary employer, the

6 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 Cheshire Service was. None of the information provided by the Staffordshire Service to the Cheshire Service covered his individual circumstances or his /request.

Denying his request for all of his wholetime pensionable service to be aggregated into the Modified Scheme meant that it was “costing [him] tens of thousands of pounds”. His normal pension age was currently 60, instead of 55. The 2006 Scheme, where the majority of his benefits were held, attracted a less favourable accrual rate and less favourable commutation rates. A number of his colleagues had less wholetime service, but were entitled to substantially greater pensions.

The Cheshire Service was actively discriminating against him by not allowing him to aggregate his wholetime service into the Modified Scheme.

The Cheshire Service’s submissions

Mr T did not meet one of the four conditions under part 2, regulation 1A(1)(b), of the Amendment Order, namely (1)(b)(iii). Mr T remained in his role as a retained firefighter post 6 April 2006 up until 2022. This was alongside his role as a wholetime firefighter from 16 April 2007 with the Cheshire Service. Mr T had two concurrent periods of service, whereas to meet the requirements of the Amendment Order he was required to leave his retained role and immediately take up his wholetime role.

Part 11, regulation 5A(2b)(iii), of the Amendment Order, provides the employing authority with the discretion to allow a firefighter with concurrent retained and wholetime service to become a special member of the Modified Scheme, in regard to their wholetime service. This was on the provision that the employing authority required the firefighter to remain in their retained role alongside their wholetime role.

It sought an informal review from the Home Office and the Local Government Authority (LGA) on its understanding of the Amendment Order and the relevant regulations. Specifically, the intention of part 11, regulation 5A(2b)(iii) and its wording. In response to their request, the LGA said:

“By way of update, I have spoken with [the Home Office], and they have confirmed that this regulation should only apply where the individual is [wholetime] and [retained] at the same FRA, hence why the regulation is drafted the way it is…”

It believed that this discretion was only available to the authority who employed, and asked the firefighter to remain in a retained role as well as their wholetime role. The Cheshire Authority did not have the discretion to aggregate Mr T’s wholetime service into the Modified Scheme as it had only ever employed him as a wholetime firefighter.

It was unaware of any instances whereby a firefighter was able to aggregate their wholetime pensionable service into the Modified Scheme, in regard to concurrent wholetime and retained service between different authorities.

Mr T had provided eight examples of colleagues whose circumstances were similar to his own and who had been able to have their wholetime service included within the 7 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 Modified Scheme. Having reviewed each of the cases there were differences between Mr T’s circumstances and those of his eight colleagues.

Six out of the eight colleagues that Mr T referenced left their retained role and immediately started wholetime roles. So, they all met the four conditions under part 2, regulation 1A(1)(b). The remaining two colleagues referred to were asked by their employing authority to remain in retained roles alongside their wholetime roles with the same fire authority. Consequently, the fire authority responsible for these two colleagues was able to exercise the discretion available under part 11, regulation 5A(2b)(iii). This was different in Mr T’s case as he was employed by two different fire authorities.

The Cheshire Service did not identify Mr T as eligible for special membership in the Modified Scheme during the Remedy Period as he was employed by them in a wholetime role, and a member of the 2006 Scheme. The LGA provided guidance to the local fire authorities about what actions needed to be undertaken during the Remedy Period. The guidance outlined the eligibility criteria for membership in the Modified Scheme, which the Cheshire Service adhered to.

Part 11, regulation 5A(4) of the Amendment Order required the local fire authorities to “use reasonable endeavours to notify all those existing employees and former employees who may be eligible to join this Scheme as a special member”. This required the authorities to directly write to a firefighter’s last known address, this was also in addition to more general information available to capture anyone that might have been missed.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

8 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

9 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

“with the agreement of the authority, as a regular firefighter, but not as a retained firefighter, where he had been employed by an authority as a retained firefighter and then required by that authority after 5th April 2006 to remain in employment as a retained firefighter whilst taking up employment as a regular firefighter”

It was noted that there is some contention surrounding the interpretation of this regulation with Mr T disagreeing with the Cheshire Service’s interpretation. According to the Cheshire Service, regulation 5A(2)(b)(iii) does not apply as his retained and wholetime service was between two different fire authorities.

10 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

• He disagreed with the interpretation of regulation 5A(2)(b)(iii). He was asked to remain in his role as a retained firefighter, by the Staffordshire Service. At the same time, he was a wholetime firefighter with the Cheshire Service. So, he had two concurrent roles.

• Regulation 5A(2)(b)(iii) did not state that his wholetime and retained service could not be aggregated due to the fact each was derived from a different fire authority.

• He did not understand how he could terminate his retained service, once he started his wholetime service, when the Amendment Order and membership in the Modified Scheme were implemented retrospectively.

• All firefighters, both full-time and part-time were contracted under the same terms and conditions of employment. There was no divergence or difference from employer to employer.

• He was never given the option to aggregate his wholetime service into the Modified Scheme. This was despite his primary employer, the Cheshire Service, conducting a widescale exercise and contacting his colleagues with the option to aggregate their membership. He believed that he should have been contacted by the Cheshire Service about this, but he was not.

• It could not be said that the Cheshire Service did not agree to him remaining in his retained role, with the Staffordshire Service, when he started his wholetime role. He had to formally request approval for his secondary employment which he received in writing.

The Cheshire Service accepted the Adjudicator’s opinion and did not provide any additional comments. 11 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 Ombudsman’s decision Mr T’s complaint is that he is unable to transfer his wholetime service built up in the 2006 Scheme, into the Modified Scheme. Consequently, he believes that he is being denied the more advantageous benefits of the Modified Scheme in respect of his wholetime service with the Cheshire Service.

It appears to me that this case turns on the correct interpretation of the 2006 Order as amended by the Amendment Order and whether the Cheshire Service and the Staffordshire Service have duly complied with its provisions, having regard to the purpose of its provisions to address the less favourable treatment of retained firefighters in respect of pensions as determined in the case of Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority [2006].

Background

It is worth noting the substance of his complaint and the potential financial loss or detriment that results from not being able to aggregate his post 2006 wholetime pensionable service with his pensionable service in the Modified Scheme. The 1992 Scheme provides pension benefits for persons who started service as regular firefighters (i.e. in wholetime service) with an English fire and rescue authority before 6 April 2006. Normal pension age for regular firefighters is age 55 and the benefits payable are, broadly, 1/60 of average pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service up to 20 years with further pensionable service counting double up to a maximum of 40 years.

As referred to above, the 1992 Scheme was closed to new joiners in April 2006 by the 2006 Order but continued to have effect for existing members. As such, persons starting employment as regular firefighters after that date could not join the 1992 Scheme. Instead, they could join the 2006 Scheme. The benefits were less generous in that normal retirement age for retirement directly from service is 60 and pension benefits are 1/60 of final pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service. A full comparison of the benefits is not required for present purposes. It is sufficient to note that the 1992 Scheme was more generous and that had Mr T been permitted to join the 1992 Scheme when he started service as a retained firefighter (i.e. part-time service) for the Staffordshire Service, he would have remained entitled to participate in the 1992 Scheme on joining the Cheshire Service.

The provisions of the 1992 Scheme, the 2006 Scheme and the Modified Scheme apply equally to service with different Fire Authorities and such service is treated as continuous.

As referred to above and set out in the Explanatory Note to the Amendment Order, following the [2006] (“ ”) case the Modified Scheme was established (as a section of the 2006 Scheme) by the Amendment Order to remedy the discrimination between wholetime or regular firefighters and retained firefighters. It provides benefits that, albeit different in some details, are likely to be broadly equivalent in value to those provided by the 1992 12 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 Scheme including, in particular, normal pension age for retirement directly from service is age 55 and pension accrual is 1/45 of pensionable pay for each year of pensionable service.

Retained firefighters who were denied access to the 1992 Scheme suffered less favourable treatment not only in respect of their service as retained firefighters in the period prior to 6 April 2006 when the 1992 Scheme was open to new members but also in respect of any service including later service as regular or wholetime firefighters after 6 April 2006 that qualified only for the 2006 Scheme but could have qualified under the 1992 Scheme had they not been wrongly denied access to the 1992 Scheme prior to its closure to new members on 6 April 2006.

Hence, as explained in the Explanatory Note to the Amendment Order, to provide full redress for the less favourable treatment, the Amendment Order provides not only for benefits in respect of service as a retained firefighter between the coming into force of the Part-time Workers Regulations on 1 July 2000 and the closure of the 2006 Scheme to new joiners on 6 April 2006, subject to payment of contributions, but it also allows “eligible members” to convert existing service in the 2006 Scheme to service in the Modified Scheme.

The interpretation of these provisions is what is in issue. As Mr T discovered in 2019, retained firefighters who became regular firefighters after 6 April 2006 with the same Fire Authority were permitted to convert their 2006 Scheme service to Modified Scheme service but he was not invited to do so and has been denied the right to do so as his service as a regular firefighter after April 2006 was with the Cheshire Service whereas his service as a retained firefighter before April 2006 was with the Staffordshire Service.

“As Lord Sales said in the most recent summary we were referred to, that in PACCAR, the basic task for the Court interpreting a statutory provision is clear, namely, to identify the meaning of the words in question in the particular context (at [40]). He went on at [41] to refer to the numerous authoritative statements in modern case law which emphasise the central importance in interpreting any legislation of identifying its purpose, concluding as follows:

13 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 ‘The purpose and scheme of an Act of Parliament provide the basic frame of orientation for the use of the language employed in it.’

The same point was made even more forcefully in one of the passages which he cites, namely the statement by Lord Mance JSC in Bloomsbury International Ltd v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2011] UKSC 25, [2011] 1 WLR 1546 at [10] as follows:

‘In matters of statutory construction, the statutory purpose and the general scheme by which it is to be put into effect are of central importance. They represent the context in which individual words are to be understood. In this area as in the area of contractual construction, “the notion of words having a natural meaning” is not always very helpful (Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan [1997] AC 313, 391C, per Lord Hoffmann), and certainly not as a starting point, before identifying the legislative purpose and scheme.

These statements were made in the context of interpretation of primary legislation, but there was no dispute that the same principles apply to the interpretation of secondary legislation, with the added consideration that delegated legislation must be interpreted in light of the enabling Act, the legislative purpose of delegated legislation being assumed to be the purpose of that Act: see Bennion, Bailey & Norbury on Statutory Interpretation (8th edn, 2020) §3.17. 68. So (…) I consider, in accordance with the guidance from the Supreme Court, that we should first orientate ourselves by reference to the legislative purpose and scheme before considering the meaning of the words to be construed. As Lord Bingham said in Quintavalle at [8] this not only means construing the words in the context of the statute as a whole, but reading the statute as a whole “in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.””

14 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

Relevant provisions of the 2006 Order as amended by the Amendment Order

“(a) a person who—

(i) having taken up employment as a retained firefighter before 6th April 2006;

(ii) having continued in such employment until the date of his election; and 15 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 (iii) having elected, within the period required by rule 6B(1), or 6B(12) as the case may be, of Part 11, to pay the mandatory special period pension contributions”.

“(1) This rule applies—

(a) to a person who is a special firefighter member (…) and who is a standard member of this Scheme;

(b) in respect of pensionable service which he would be entitled to treat as special pensionable service.”

16 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

“Within two months of receiving the notification in paragraph (4), or if no notification has been received, within four months of the initial date, a person may apply to the authority by which he was employed in service falling within paragraph (2) above for a statement of the service in respect of which he may become entitled to pay contributions under this rule and the mandatory special period pension contributions which he would be required to pay in respect of it.”

So, Mr T should have received a notification from, and needed to make an application to, the Fire Authority by which he was employed in respect of service falling within rule 5A(2). Rule 5A(2) provides:

“The conditions are that—

(a) the person is entitled to join this Scheme as a special member;

(b) the service is—

(i) as a retained firefighter; or

(ii) as a regular firefighter where he took up employment after 5th April 2006 as a regular firefighter immediately after the termination of his employment as a retained firefighter; or

(iii) with the agreement of the authority, as a regular firefighter, but not as a retained firefighter, where he had been employed by an authority as a retained firefighter and then required by that authority after 5th April 2006

17 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 to remain in employment as a retained firefighter whilst taking up employment as a regular firefighter.”

18 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

19 CAS-76722-Z3Z9

Camilla Barry Deputy Pensions Ombudsman

19 June 2025

20 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 Appendix Extracts of the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Amendment) (England) Order 2014

Amendment to part 2 of the Order:

““Special membership

1A.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (5) and (15), a firefighter member of any of the following descriptions is also a special firefighter member of this Scheme—

(a) a person who—

(i) having taken up employment as a retained firefighter before 6th April 2006;

(ii) having continued in such employment until the date of his election; and

(iii) having elected(3), within the period required by rule 6B(1), or 6B(12) as the case may be, of Part 11, to pay the mandatory special period pension contributions;

(b) a person who—

(i) having taken up employment as a retained firefighter before 6th April 2006;

(ii) having continued in such employment until a date on or after 6th April 2006;

(iii) having, immediately after the termination of such employment, taken up employment as a regular firefighter and continued in that employment until the date of his election; and

(iv) having elected, within the period required by rule 6B(1) of Part 11, or 6B(12) as the case may be, to pay the mandatory special period pension contributions”

Amendment to part 11 of the Order:

“Purchase of service during the limited period

5A.—(1) A person member who satisfies the conditions specified in paragraph (2) may, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, elect to pay pension contributions in respect of his service during the limited period.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the person is entitled to join this Scheme as a special member;

(b) the service is—

(i) as a retained firefighter; or

21 CAS-76722-Z3Z9 (ii) as a regular firefighter where he took up employment after 5th April 2006 as a regular firefighter immediately after the termination of his employment as a retained firefighter; or

(iii) with the agreement of the authority, as a regular firefighter, but not as a retained firefighter, where he had been employed by an authority as a retained firefighter and then required by that authority after 5th April 2006 to remain in employment as a retained firefighter whilst taking up employment as a regular firefighter.

…

(4) Within two months of the initial date, the authority shall use reasonable endeavours to notify all those existing employees and former employees who may be entitled to join this Scheme as a special member that they may be so entitled.”

Amendment to part 1 of the Order, definitions:

“initial date” means 1st April 2014

…

“special member” means a special firefighter member, a special deferred member or a special pensioner member

…

“special firefighter member” has the meaning given in rule 1A(1) to (4) of Part 2”

22