Fee Paid Judicial Pension Scheme Fpjps Judicial Pension Scheme 2015 · CAS-78673-K7W9

CAS-78673-K7W9

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs H

Scheme Fee Paid Judicial Pension Scheme (FPJPS) Judicial Pension Scheme 2015 (JPS2015)

Respondents Ministry of Justice (MOJ) XPS

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 31 May 2020, Mrs H sent an email to the Government Legal Department (GLD) requesting confirmation of how each of her pensions were calculated in order to ascertain whether she could retire before age 65 or 67.

On 7 June 2020, Mrs H sent an email to XPS with several requests for information. In particular, she requested information as to how her FPJPS and JPS2015 pensions would be calculated at retirement age.

On 25 June 2020, XPS wrote to Mrs H directing her to the Scheme’s guide which showed how her benefits were calculated for both the FPJPS and JPS2015. Mrs H 1 CAS-78673-K7W9 responded the same day to request the calculations used in determining her FPJPS and JPS2015 benefits so she could consider whether she could retire before age 65 or 67.

On 1 September 2020, Mrs H sent a chaser email to XPS for it to provide her with the mathematical equation used to calculate the projected figures for both options of retirement.

On 16 September 2020, XPS responded to Mrs H’s information request by directing her to the Scheme guide which showed how her benefits were calculated and detailed the assumptions used to project the pension.

On 17 September 2020, Mrs H emailed XPS to complain about the poor service she had received in requesting information to understand how her benefits were calculated.

On 23 September 2020, Mrs H wrote to XPS, following a telephone call with it. She said in summary:-

XPS had now agreed to provide her with the formula for calculating each of her pensions, including the definitions of terms used.

She explained her understanding of the FPJPS annual pension formula and lump sum calculation.

Similarly, she also explained her understanding of the JPS2015 formula.

She required XPS to explain the formula to see whether her understanding was correct.

On 19 October 2020, the following events took place:-

XPS emailed Mrs H to direct her to the regulations which defined the calculations under both the FPJPS and JPS2015. It also provided an example of a lump sum calculation to her.

Mrs H emailed XPS back and explained that her original query had not been answered and that the email sent had caused her confusion. She requested for a response to her complaint.

On 22 October 2020, XPS wrote to Mrs H to provide her with its stage one IDRP response to her complaint. It said in summary:-

Having reviewed the correspondence it could see that XPS did not address Mrs H’s query regarding confirmation of how her benefits were calculated.

It was assumed by XPS that she had received a pension quotation previously and, because of this, she would have the relevant information to refer to, which was not the case. Although Mrs H was provided with the JPS2015 guide, which detailed the basis of accrual, she was not provided with the FPJPS guide. 2 CAS-78673-K7W9 It apologised for the response that had been provided to her.

It explained that she was not able to accrue any further benefits under the FPJPS, although when Mrs H comes to retire from her role the pay rate at her retirement date would be used to calculate her benefits.

The full pension would become payable at 65. It is not possible for a pension to be drawn before retirement or before the age of 60.

The method of calculating Mrs H’s pension was provided to her, including a worked example and the current early retirement factors.

For the JPS2015, it set out that Mrs H was actively accruing pension benefits. This pension is based on a career average accrual model (CARE). The accrual rate is 2.32% of her pensionable earnings each year and it is revalued each year in line with CPI.

Mrs H’s normal retirement date under this scheme is 67. If she were to retire early, before the age of 67, she would be subject to an early retirement reduction.

Mrs H did not accept stage one IDRP, and the complaint was progressed to stage two IDRP.

On 28 March 2022, the Judicial Policy Correspondence (JPC) team issued a letter to Mrs H providing further clarification on the formula used and underlying factors concerning her pension benefits.

On 21 April 2022, the Judicial Pensions Board’s (JPB) Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) held a meeting and upheld the following points of Mrs H’s complaint:

significant delay in MoJ and GLD responding proactively to Mrs H’s emails;

delays in providing the detailed breakdown of the calculation used to calculate her pension benefits; and

inconsistent evidence provided by XPS.

On 15 May 2022, MOJ provided its stage 2 IDRP response to Mrs H’s complaint. It said in summary:-

It agreed that Mrs H’s initial query regarding an explanation of the formula used to calculate her pension benefits was not answered in a timely manner and that there had been several emails between her and XPS before it was provided to her.

It acknowledged and apologised for the poor standard of service Mrs H received.

3 CAS-78673-K7W9 It fully upheld her complaint and offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

Following the complaint being referred to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO), MOJ and Mrs H made further submissions that have been summarised in paragraphs 19 to 25 below.

MOJ’s position

After issuing the stage two IDRP, XPS had been communicating extensively with Mrs H, as she had continued to question most of the figures provided by XPS as she aimed to use the figures provided to calculate her own pension at any given time. XPS had provided Mrs H with further figures and explained the calculations. However, Mrs H remained dissatisfied in her communications.

In July 2022, XPS agreed to increase the compensation amount to £500 to reflect the failure by MOJ to respond to correspondence sent after the issuing of its stage two IDRP.

It provided Mrs H with a breakdown of how the benefits have been calculated each year in respect of the JPS2015 which should help her to reconcile the pension figure quoted on her annual benefit statements. It also provided the formula used to calculate the maximum tax-free lump sum available which is adopted by all registered pension schemes (such as the JPS2015).

MOJ confirmed that Mrs H’s breakdown of pensionable sitting data it held on file had been sent to her, as per her request.

MOJ then received a request from Mrs H to use the diary entry excel file that she had put together listing all the sitting days she had sat according to her record to highlight the discrepancies between her data and the data MOJ held. MOJ wrote to Mrs H attaching the diary entry excel file that she had created. It expressed to her that she had included several dates within her data which were not pensionable and so it was not included within its data.

All information in relation to the breakdown of Mrs H’s pension and sitting dates have now been provided to her and her complaint has been dealt with.

Mrs H’s position

She remains dissatisfied with the sitting data and believes that MOJ have given her the wrong calculations.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

4 CAS-78673-K7W9 Since raising her complaint with TPO, Mrs H’s complaint regarding the service she received from both XPS and MOJ had been addressed. While it was disappointing that Mrs H received poor service, it was the Adjudicator’s view that XPS and MOJ had adequately compensated her with £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her in line with the Pension Ombudsman’s current guidance.

The issue which remained outstanding was in relation to whether or not the pension calculations sent to Mrs H were correct while considering her sitting data as a Judge. Having reviewed all the email exchanges and spreadsheet data between Mrs H, MOJ and XPS, it was the Adjudicator’s view that MOJ and XPS had provided Mrs H with all the information requested in relation to her pension and sitting data so that she could better prepare for her future.

The Adjudicator understood that Mrs H had questioned the accuracy of the sitting data provided by XPS. However, the Adjudicator had seen no evidence to suggest that this information was incorrect or that XPS has provided Mrs H with incorrect pension calculations. MOJ's Data and Claims Team had reviewed her sitting data and provided a breakdown to Mrs H, and the Adjudicator was satisfied from seeing the data that it was correct. So, the Adjudicator did not consider that there had been any maladministration.

XPS’ and MOJ’s offer of £500 for the distress and inconvenience she had suffered was neither here nor there for them or her. What was required was better service for everyone not just her. She had suffered years of stress and anxiety, including refusals to provide information and the provision of incorrect data. That data was subsequently corrected without apology or openness, and only when she had raised concerns with them.

XPS and MOJ had wasted years of her, TPO’s and others’ time and that could not be compensated with £500, but only with a change to their operations.

Ombudsman’s decision In considering Mrs H’s complaint, I am only able to take into account the evidence Mrs H has presented to me. In particular, I am not able to consider issues that other members of the FPJPS or the JPS2015 may have encountered.

In relation to the alleged incorrect information Mrs H said she had received from XPS and MOJ in relation to her sitting data, I agree with the Adjudicator’s assessment that

5 CAS-78673-K7W9 inadequate evidence has been presented to suggest that this information was incorrect. The MOJ has set out in some detail the underlying calculations of Mrs H’s pension benefits and, while I understand Mrs H’s remaining frustration and lack of trust in the figures provided to her, I do not have evidence that would enable me to find that they are incorrect.

Turning to the level of service received, this is a matter of maladministration, and a potential award for distress and inconvenience. In this case, I agree that the £500 offered to Mrs H adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience that XPS and MOJ have caused her, and is in line with my Determinations of similar cases.

Clearly, in making this offer, XPS and MOJ are acknowledging that maladministration has taken place, and I would expect them to assess the lessons they can learn for the future from that maladministration.

In conclusion, I do not uphold Mrs H’s complaint.

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman 19 March 2026

6