UK Pensions: What’s new this week? June 16, 2025

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) blog post: Industry next steps following the Pension Schemes Bill

TPR has published a blog post discussing its expectations of the pensions industry following the publication of the Pension Schemes Bill 2025.

In relation to the Bill’s provisions on the release of defined benefit (DB) surpluses, TPR reiterates (as per its recent guidance) that it expects DB trustees to "have plans ready for how they would respond to sponsoring employers’ requests to release some of their scheme’s surplus and to take advice and undertake an appropriate level of due diligence".

The blog post discusses TPR initiatives, including its upcoming strategy to bring trusteeship into line with other professions and corporate governance standards.

Read the blog post.

UK EMIR clearing exemption to continue indefinitely

Regulations have been made enacting the government’s promise to continue indefinitely the UK exemption for pension schemes from having to comply with clearing requirements for over-the-counter derivatives (the exemption was otherwise scheduled to expire on June 18, 2025). This relates to the UK clearing exemption only; the similar EU exemption for European pension scheme arrangements has already ended.

Read the regulations.

The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) blog post: proposed improvements to operations in 2025/2026

In a blog post this week TPO has set out how it is looking to improve its operating model over the next year. Priorities include:

• improving awareness (in particular, of the need for internal dispute resolution (IDR) to be completed before TPO accepts a complaint) and providing information to support earlier dispute resolution and
• expanding the use of expedited determinations and streamlining decision-making (eg by adopting shorter opinions and determinations).

TPO will set a greater expectation for schemes to complete a good quality and well-signposted end-to-end complaint process; tighten deadlines and request formal responses earlier in the process; and provide more guidance on key topics that can be shared with members.

Read the blog post.

High Court confirms TPO decision is final and binding

Under sections 151(3) and (4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, a determination by TPO is final and binding on the parties to that complaint. It can be appealed on a point of law, but otherwise that should be the end of the matter. Occasionally, however, claimants attempt further action in the High Court; Chief Master Shuman has recently dismissed one such attempt: Wilson v Port of Felixstowe Pension Trustee Ltd.

Mr Wilson’s employment was terminated on the grounds of ill health in June 2017, when he was aged 37. He applied for an incapacity pension and was eventually awarded a lower tier pension in August 2020—this provided a reduced level of incapacity pension on the basis that the member could not follow his normal employment with the employer but would be able to undertake an employment with another employer (for example, sedentary employment that did not require manual labour). Mr Wilson challenged this decision under the plan’s internal dispute resolution (IDR) procedure, claiming that the reference in the rules to "an employment with another employer" meant a like-for-like role. This argument was rejected by the trustee. The member complained to TPO but his complaint was dismissed and the period for the member to appeal that decision expired on November 30, 2023.

In April 2024 the member brought High Court proceedings seeking a declaration as to the construction of the plan’s rules on incapacity pensions, and specifically whether "an employment" meant "normal employment". He argued that this point of construction did not form part of his complaint to TPO and pointed to a previous case, Sheffield v Kier Group plc, in which the court found that TPO had misdirected himself as to the matter complained of and had exceeded his jurisdiction by determining wider matters. The text contained in the member’s complaint form was in some ways ambiguous, but the court held that it had to be read in context: the member was asking to be paid the correct pension, and the trustee had decided that he was entitled to a lower tier, not an upper tier, pension. TPO had understood the complaint in this way, and the member had not suggested that he was wrong to do so. Construction of the relevant rules was an intrinsic part of the determination, so TPO’s decision was binding on the parties to the complaint.

In the Sheffield case the complainant had on multiple occasions informed TPO that specific matters were not part of his complaint, and yet TPO made determinations on those points. Mr Wilson had made no such efforts and it was clear that TPO had considered construction of the rules as a central part of his decision. This claim was therefore an attempt to relitigate a matter on which TPO’s decision was final and binding as if it were a judgment of the court.

Read the case.