7 Days is a weekly round up of developments in pensions, normally published on Monday afternoons. We collate this information from key industry sources, such as the DWP, HMRC and TPR.
In this 7 Days
At Sackers we are committed to ensuring that the Coronavirus outbreak causes minimal disruption for our clients, and have taken several steps to ensure it is ‘business as usual’. For details of these steps, as well as key points for trustees and employers to consider in light of the outbreak (which we will continue to update), please see the dedicated section of our website, or talk to your usual Sackers contact.
On 19 August 2020, the PPF announced that it will be appealing against parts of the Hampshire judgment. In that case, the CJEU ruled that the PPF needs to provide members with compensation of “at least 50% of the value of their accrued entitlement” under their occupational pension scheme (see our case summary). This would mean that the PPF would have to amend its methodology.
The PPF has confirmed that it is appealing:
- the approach it may adopt to meet the requirement for members to receive 50% of the value of their entitlement, and
- how survivors’ benefits should be dealt with.
The appeal was lodged on 20 August 2020 and the PPF will first need Court of Appeal agreement to proceed. It has asked for this to be dealt with “as soon as possible”.
In the meantime, the PPF is continuing to work on its plans for how it could implement the June 2020 judgment, so that it is “in a position to do so if necessary as soon as possible after…the appeal outcome”. It has asked the Court of Appeal if it can wait until the appeal process is completed before it starts making any changes to payments.
The announcement also confirms that the DWP has lodged an appeal against the separate ruling that the use of the compensation cap constitutes unlawful age discrimination. This was decided in Hughes (see our case summary), a follow-up case to Hampshire.