Court of Appeal rules TPO is not "competent court" for recoupment of overpayments

In an appeal of last year’s High Court judgment in CMG Pension Trustees v CGI IT UK, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Pensions Ombudsman is not a “competent court” as provided by, but not defined in, section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995, for the purposes of recouping overpayments of pension by way of set-off against future benefits.

Section 91 imposes conditions on trustees to get an “order of a competent court” where a member disputes an overpayment amount. The CA found that in terms of the nature and extent of the PO’s jurisdiction, it is not comparable with a court. In addition, the PO’s jurisdiction is “one-sided” in that trustees can bring complaints only in certain circumstances.

Where there is a dispute in such circumstances, the scheme trustees must apply to the county court to enforce a determination of the PO and the court will then enforce the ruling as if it had made it itself.

This adds a layer of complexity to such cases, as trustees will need a county (or other) court order to enforce a PO decision that recoupment of a disputed overpayment should be allowed.

The PO said it is currently reviewing its position and will provide an update shortly. Following the case of Burgess v BIC UK Ltd in 2018, the PO produced a factsheet setting out its argument to be considered a competent court and this publication, too, is being reviewed.