Metropolitan Police Pension Scheme · CAS-65467-Y9L5

CAS-65467-Y9L5

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr N

Scheme Metropolitan Police Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondents Equiniti (the Administrator)

Metropolitan Police Service (the Employer)

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.

Mr N was a member of the Scheme, a defined contribution occupational pension scheme. He retired on medical grounds.

In November 2019, the Administrator sent Mr N the Letter.

The Letter stated that because of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (the 2006 Regulations), in certain circumstances, specific relevant benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) must be deducted from an injury pension. It stated that from 10 February 2017, these benefits include Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). It asked that in order to determine whether the recipient is affected, 1 CAS-65467-Y9L5 the recipient complete and return the declaration form (the Declaration Form) attached to the Letter along with any welfare benefits documents they had. The Letter also asked that the recipient sign a consent form (the Consent Form) giving the Administrator permission to obtain information about them from the DWP. The Letter stated that any delay in returning the Consent Form could result in a pension overpayment.

The Declaration Form stated:

“I understand that benefits awarded to me by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in respect of the injury at work for which I have been awarded a Police injury pension must be deducted from that pension. I undertake to inform Police Pensions of ALL DWP awards and any changes to those awards. I have indicated below whether or not I have received any of the relevant benefits since the date of my retirement (including benefits awarded before and still in payment after my retirement).”

The Consent Form stated:

“I hereby give my authority to Department for Work and Pensions to disclose to Equiniti the details of any awards made to me now or in the future in respect of the injury that resulted in my medical retirement from the Metropolitan Police Service.”

On 6 November 2019, Mr N emailed the Administrator his copy of the Letter with the completed Declaration Form and signed Consent Form.

On 8 November 2019, Mr N sent the Administrator two emails. He requested that his signed Consent Form be destroyed with immediate effect and stipulated that he withdrew the authority it had given the Administrator. He also made a formal complaint. He complained that the Administrator had requested more information than it required, and that the Letter contained a threat to stop the recipient’s pension if they did not sign the Consent Form. He said he had been given legal advice that he should not have received the Letter.

On 9 December 2019, the Employer asked the Administrator to change the format of the Letter by separating the Declaration form and the Consent Form. The Employer said this was to address concerns from Scheme members that they may be unknowingly led into signing the Consent Form.

On 17 December 2019, the Administrator emailed Mr N. It said:

2 CAS-65467-Y9L5 “…please accept my sincere apologies for the stress and frustration you have been caused, firstly by the initial letter sent as a result of a mailing on (sic) behalf of the Metropolitan Police and secondly by our lack of response to you.”

On 5 January 2021, Mr N submitted a complaint about this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) by email.

On 22 March 2021, Mr N emailed the Employer, requesting that it stop accessing data held about him by the DWP.

On 6 April 2021, in response to Mr N, the Employer stated:

“I can confirm that the DWP letter of authority that you provided to Equiniti regarding your injury pension has been destroyed, as mentioned in my email to you of 23rd October. Also, Equiniti will not be writing to the DWP in the future regarding you.

I would however mention that, as is the case for all recipients of a police injury pension, the onus is on you to let Equiniti know if you did start to receive, from the DWP, any deductible benefit.”

On 5 May 2021, the ICO emailed Mr N and stated:

“We understand MPS Pensions Office has responded and explained that the Equiniti letter has been destroyed and that it will not be corresponding with the Department for Work and Pensions regarding you. In light of the above, we do not require further action from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at this time.”

Summary of Mr N’s position The Administrator was phishing. The Administrator asked for information it was not entitled to receive. It obtained consent to request Scheme members’ information from the DWP through deceit and a threat that their pension would otherwise be stopped or reduced. The Letter was an invasion of his privacy and an attack on his integrity.

He should not have been sent the Letter as he is of State Pension Age and therefore cannot claim ESA.

The Letter should have taken into account the fact that the recipients were former police officers who had to leave service because of ill-health or injuries.

Some of the Administrator’s actions were not legal, because it said it would use section 5 of the Data Protection Act to access a person’s data without obtaining their consent.

He has not suffered financial loss. However, he has had to undertake a lot of work and has lost a lot of time because of a poor complaints system and a lack of action being taken by the Administrator. 3 CAS-65467-Y9L5 The Administrator informed him that it had changed the wording of the Letter. However, he was not sent a version of the Letter with such changes. The Administrator refused to send an edited version of the Letter to the original recipients of the Letter.

He would like the following:-

The complaints systems he used regarding this complaint to be improved.

The Letter to be withdrawn from all recipients and their signed Consent Forms to be destroyed.

A new letter to be issued in replacement of the Letter, which:

o is signed and fully dated;

o specifies that no pensions will be stopped or reduced;

o does not suggest that recipients may provide false information;

o is sent only to people it affects; and

o contains an apology for how the Letter was worded.

• The authority to access DWP records to be time-limited and restricted to information about welfare benefits that require recovery against an injury pension.

• A written apology to be sent to recipients of the Letter, explaining how things went wrong and confirming that their previous responses have been destroyed.

• Those who authorised and sent the Letter to be given advice and for this to be recorded.

Summary of the Administrator’s position The 2006 Regulations state that in certain circumstances, relevant benefits from the DWP must be deducted from the injury pension a former police officer receives. Since February 2017, the relevant benefits include ESA. As some pensioners may have been claiming ESA and receiving the wrong amount of injury pension, the Administrator was under an obligation to send the Letter.

Mr N was one of the recipients of the Letter because he was under State Pension Age in February 2017.

Summary of the Employer’s position

4 CAS-65467-Y9L5

5 CAS-65467-Y9L5 Adjudicator’s Opinion

• The Police owe a duty of care to ill health pensioners. The Letter was not written in accordance with this.

• The Letter was misleading because it was sent to people to whom it did not apply. The issuing of the Letter was an unnecessary invasion of privacy. The Letter implied that recipients were required to sign it. The request for access to their welfare benefits information was also not time limited.

• The Letter would not have been reworded if members of the Scheme had not complained about it.

• The Administrator said that the Letter was not applicable to Mr N. So, the Administrator conceded that it should not have been sent to him.

6 CAS-65467-Y9L5 • The ICO ordered the Administrator to 'Cease and Desist'. Despite this, the Administrator said it is awaiting confirmation from the DWP as to whether it requires Scheme members’ consent to access their welfare benefits records.

Ombudsman’s decision

Mr N contended that the Administrator should have only requested access to information about Scheme members who reported that they were claiming the relevant welfare benefits. It would not be practical or professional for the Administrator to rely solely on the assurances of Scheme members to ensure it was enforcing the 2006 Regulations correctly. The Administrator has a responsibility to administer the Scheme on the basis of verifiable evidence. This is important for maintaining accuracy and ensuring that its actions can be effectively monitored by regulatory bodies.

Mr N expressed concern that the requested access to welfare benefits records was not time limited. This is a reasonable concern. However, a pension is typically set up to provide a person with an income for the remainder of their life. So, I find that it was reasonable for the Administrator to request the information without a prescribed time limit.

Mr N contended that the issuing of the Letter was an unnecessary invasion of privacy. At the point of issuing the Letter, the information about Scheme members’ welfare benefits was not actually taken. Further, it was open to recipients of the Letter to

7 CAS-65467-Y9L5 refuse to sign the Consent Form. So, I do not agree that the issuing of the Letter constituted an invasion of privacy or amounted to a tool for phishing.

Mr N said the Letter would not have been reworded if members of the Scheme had not complained about it. The Employer asked the Administrator to change only the format of the Letter. The Letter has not been re-issued. I do not consider that deciding to edit the format of the Letter amounts to agreeing that its contents were inappropriate. The Employer said the Letter could have been worded more clearly but only to ensure that it did not ask for consent from Scheme members where such consent was not required. This does not support Mr N’s contention that the Letter was reworded because it sought too much information.

Mr N claimed that the Administrator agreed that the Letter was not applicable to him and should not have been sent to him. The Administrator said the 2006 Regulations did not directly affect Mr N as he was not claiming any of the relevant welfare benefits. I do not accept that this amounts to the Administrator conceding that the Letter should not have been sent to him. I note that the Administrator apologised to Mr N on 17 December 2019 for “…stress and frustration…caused…by the letter". It is understandable that Mr N may have taken this to be an expression of regret for sending the Letter. However, the Administrator specifically apologised for stress and frustration caused, and did not make any statements contradicting its repeated assertions that it was under a duty to issue the Letter.

While I note Mr N’s comment that the ICO ordered the Administrator to 'Cease and Desist’ from its attempt to access his welfare benefits records no evidence has been provided to support this assertion.

I find that there has been no maladministration on the part of the Administrator or the Employer.

I do not uphold Mr N’s complaint.

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 30 August 2023

8