UK Pensions in dispute—April 2026

Transfers: beware assuming extra due diligence duties

Transfers to scam schemes continue to generate complaints to the Pensions Ombudsman (TPO). Two recent cases followed the new line of thinking on due diligence duties: transferring schemes are only under an obligation to complete the due diligence necessary to comply with legislative and scheme requirements; they are not under an obligation to carry out the additional due diligence checks set out in the Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) scams materials or the Pension Scams Industry Group’s (PSIG) Code of Good Practice. TPO had previously criticised schemes for not following the TPR and PSIG guidance; see more on this change of approach here.

These more recent cases examine the circumstances in which a scheme may voluntarily assume a duty to carry out additional due diligence. This is subject to a three-limb test: (a) the scheme had voluntarily assumed responsibility to carry out additional due diligence; (b) the member placed reasonable reliance on the scheme doing so; and (c) it was reasonably foreseeable to the scheme that the member would rely on it to carry out those checks.

In one case, there were internal emails which suggested the scheme did carry out additional checks. This did not create an assumption of responsibility because the scheme had not told the member that they would carry out those checks or that they would warn him of any red flags, so he could not be said to have placed reasonable reliance on this. In the other case, the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) noted that the scheme sending out TPR’s “Scorpion leaflet” and asking a member to confirm that they have read it, and/or the member being advised by an IFA, would help to negate an assumption of duty by the scheme.

CAS-54901-V6R7 and CAS-69397-X3Y6

What does this ruling mean for trustees?

Schemes can still complete additional scams checks as part of their internal transfer processes but should be careful about how they are communicating to members about this. If there is a suggestion that the member can rely on schemes to do additional checks, this could create an assumption of duty to do more than the scheme would otherwise be required to do, and a risk of claims if they do not take those steps.

Transfers: reasonable to request legal opinions to confirm status of receiving scheme

Also on the topic of transfers, the DPO has found that it was reasonable for a scheme to ask a member to provide legal opinions, at the member’s cost, to prove the status of a receiving scheme.

Mrs N requested a transfer from her scheme to a qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme (QROPS) in Malta. The trustee of the scheme required two legal opinions—one advising on English law and another on Maltese law—to confirm the receiving scheme met the conditions of a QROPS. To avoid this, Mrs N instead transferred her pension to a self-invested personal pension (SIPP) to then facilitate transfer to the QROPS. Mrs N then submitted a claim for the costs of setting up the SIPP and financial advice to do this.

The DPO dismissed the complaint, finding that the legal opinions requested were reasonable; the trustee needed to be satisfied, as a matter of explicit regulatory requirement, that the receiving scheme met the conditions for a statutory transfer and those conditions were not reasonably matters which were within the expertise or responsibility of the trustee or administrator. The DPO found nothing preventing the scheme from requiring that Mrs N pay for such legal opinions.

CAS-83019-G2S0

What does this ruling mean for trustees?

This is a helpful decision for schemes, supporting their ability to request legal opinions/other evidence to satisfy statutory requirements on transfers where they cannot determine them themselves, and to require members to meet the cost of providing that evidence

High Court refuses to strike out mass data claim

The High Court has dismissed an application to strike out claims brought by nearly 4,000 claimants following data breaches related to a cyber-attack on Capita in 2023. Capita tried to have the case struck out on a number of grounds, including that words had been put into the claimants’ mouths and their cases had been tainted by confirmation bias, due to the process solicitors undertook to recruit affected individuals. This process included using a questionnaire which asked whether the individual had experienced certain things such as distress and anxiety as a result of the data breach, which Capita suggested were leading questions. These arguments were rejected and the case will proceed.

This case runs alongside (and refers to, though is not of direct relevance to) the Farley v. Paymaster case, which involves over 400 claims relating to a data protection breach involving annual benefit statements being sent to the wrong addresses.

Spurgeon & Others v. Capita Plc.

What does this ruling mean for trustees?

This shows a trend in large-scale data-related cases and highlights the importance of data and cybersecurity. If these cases are successful, it will mean that fines from the Information Commissioner’s Office will not be the only potential repercussion of a data breach—there may also be large-scale litigation to contend with. Ensuring your data and cyber-governance and protections are robust will help to mitigate this risk.