It’s All Coming Back to Me: Four Ombudsman determinations in 2025 you shouldn’t miss

A series of recent Pensions Ombudsman determinations offer useful reminders - and a few surprises - for trustees, employers and administrators. From GMP equalisation delays to mirror‑image benefits, and from historic transfer due diligence to the meaning of “rights allowed to an earner”, the themes are consistent: documentation matters, duties have limits, and assumptions made decades ago can still surface today. 

It’s all coming back to me – and so that it all comes back to you as well, below is a digest of the key lessons.  Spot the song references and work out the artist as you go! 

1. GMP Equalisation: I’m (still) Alive

Many schemes are still grappling with the data‑heavy task of GMP equalisation. Let’s be real, it takes time.

A determination in January 2025 dealt with a member who had repeatedly pressed his scheme’s trustees for confirmation of his equalised GMP. The trustees acknowledged the issue but explained that the data available for the member, who had transferred out in 1991, was limited. The member complained about the delay in confirming whether his transferred payment would be uplifted and the lack of data. 

The Ombudsman took a balanced and pragmatic approach. GMP equalisation is “a difficult and complicated project” and it is understandable that “it will take a reasonable period of time to implement”. The Ombudsman commented that the project, which had been progressing for several years and in the context of further developments, had not been unreasonably delayed.

On the missing historic data, the Ombudsman recognised the reality: the amount of data kept in respect of past transfers is often limited. In this case it helped that the member had not shown any loss flowing from the perceived maladministration.

However, after having undertaken to do so, the trustees had failed to keep the member appropriately updated and for that, the Ombudsman awarded £500 for distress and inconvenience.

Why it matters: This is a reassuring decision for schemes still deep in GMP projects. Where delays are unavoidable, manage expectations carefully and be conscious of fulfilling commitments made to members. 

2. Mirror Image Benefits and Contractual Promises: My Benefits Will Go On

A significant determination in February examined a long‑running dispute over “mirror image benefits” following a bulk transfer in the 1990s.

A member (“H”) transferred employment in 1996 as a result of a reorganisation and was sent a memorandum saying that his existing executive pension benefits (including RPI increases capped at 5%) would be mirrored in the receiving scheme. Those increases never made it into the rules of either the transferring or receiving scheme.

When the trustees learned in 2015 that most member increases did not reflect the rules, and announced a freeze until pensions realigned to the correct levels, H complained.

The Ombudsman found for the member on almost every point, concluding that:

• there was a binding contract between H and the employer to secure mirror benefits;
• the employer was contractually obliged to procure those benefits in the new scheme;
• limitation did not bar the complaint because the breach only crystallised in 2017;
• the employer breached its implied duty of good faith; and
• the employer was estopped from denying the agreed assumption that H would receive specific benefits in the new scheme and that this would be documented in due course.

The Ombudsman directed the employer to amend the rules or augment H’s benefits to give effect to the promised mirror image benefits and awarded £1,000 for serious distress and inconvenience.

Why it matters: This is a powerful reminder that informal promises can be enforceable. Communications and verbal assurances given during mergers and transfers can create long‑lasting obligations, even if the rules appear to say otherwise.

3. Historic Transfer Due Diligence: Because You Transferred Me

Complaints in relation to transfers to potential scam schemes tend to be in two categories – that the trustees failed to do enough due diligence and should not have made the transfer or that they did too much, resulting in delays. 

A determination from September fell into the first category and examined what trustees were actually required to do when processing statutory transfers after guidance had been issued on pensions came in 2013 and before new transfer conditions were introduced in 2021.

A member who transferred to a small self-administered scheme in 2014 argued that the transferring trustees should have carried out a more thorough due diligence exercise to spot the risk of a scam. The trustees had provided the Pensions Regulator’s “scorpion leaflet”, ensured HMRC registration, and confirmed the member had earnings. But they had not carried out broader investigations.

The Ombudsman’s conclusions were clear:

• there was no statutory or regulatory obligation to follow the Regulator’s scams guidance;
• there was no common law or equitable duty of care requiring wider due diligence;
• trustees might owe a duty of care if they had expressly undertaken responsibility to investigate the receiving scheme on the member’s behalf.

Why it matters: A helpful decision for trustees facing complaints about historic transfers to scam vehicles, particularly given the Ombudsman said that this decision is likely to guide how the Ombudsman will deal with other similar complaints in the future.

4. “Rights Allowed to an Earner”: I Didn’t Need to Earn All Night

Finally, a Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) determination in October revisited the statutory requirement that a transfer to an occupational scheme must be used to provide “rights allowed to an earner” under the rules of an occupational pension scheme. Since Hughes v Royal London (2016), this has been commonly understood as requiring a transferring member to have earnings, from any source, at the time of the transfer, potentially causing problems where a member was not working at all.

The DPO disagreed with this approach.  Hughes is not binding authority because the interpretation of “rights allowed to an earner”- was not subject of argument or consideration before the court as the parties agreed that there was a requirement to have earnings..

The DPO concluded that “rights allowed to an earner” referred to the nature of the rights provided under the receiving scheme, not the earning status of the transferring member. In other words, the rights must be of a type typically provided to earners, rather than some unusual alternative, such as a short-term pension. In this case, the rights granted in respect of the transfer were on a defined contribution basis and were consistent with those that could be accrued by “earners”.  

The DPO also reiterated that trustees do not owe a general duty to protect members from, or to advise or warn them about, potential fraud or scams.   

Why it matters: For trustees and administrators, this determination removes a point of historical vulnerability where past transfer processes did not verify a member’s earnings status.  When new transfer conditions were introduced in 2021, new requirements on the need to consider whether a transferring member has an employment link with a receiving occupational pension scheme removed the past significance of this provision.  

Overall Themes and Takeaways

Across these cases, several messages emerge:

• Documentation matters: what was (or wasn’t) recorded decades ago continues to shape outcomes today.
• Trustees’ duties have limits: trustees are not general insurers against member loss and there is a line between what trustees must do and what members sometimes expect trustees to do.
• Assumptions made decades ago can still surface today: whether it’s a 1990s mirror image benefits promise or old transfer processes, earlier actions and assumptions can crystallise into enforceable obligations long after the event.