The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for providing inaccurate fee-paid judicial pension scheme (FPJPS) records and "significantly" delaying their correction.

The MoJ was ordered to pay the complainant, Mr T, £3,000 for the exceptional distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Mr T is a fee-paid judge and was a member of the FPJPS, a defined benefit arrangement.

On 7 January 2018, Mr T sent an email to XPS, the administrator of the FPJPS, stating that he had received his benefit statement as of 1 April 2017 as a tribunal two judge and that some of his sitting days had been omitted.

He asked for his benefit statement to be updated and a revised statement for his records.

On 4 April 2018, Mr T emailed XPS expressing concern that he had not received a substantive response to his emails and letters regarding his FPJPS record.

On 24 April 2018, XPS sent an email to Mr T stating that his previous email had been sent to an address currently not in use and asking if he could use the primary inbox in the future, which had been cc’d into this email.

It said it had located his mailing and referred it to the MoJ again, including the additional information provided by post in January.

It added that it took so long to resolve his issues due to the high volume of responses regarding sitting days and the normal high levels of workflow that it and the MoJ were currently experiencing. It apologised for the inconvenience.

Following several years of correspondence, on 16 July 2021, the MoJ emailed Mr T and once again apologised for a delay in providing the sitting days data he had requested numerous times.

An adjudicator considered Mr T’s complaint and concluded that the MoJ was required to take further action.

The MoJ offered Mr T £1,000 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration, before increasing the offer to £1,500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr T.

Mr T rejected this offer. He said a higher amount should be given for the time he spent preparing evidence of his actual sitting days based on his daily rate as a tribunal judge.

He also asked for his printing costs to be reimbursed.

The adjudicator’s view was that the offer of £1,500 was appropriate.

However, as it became apparent that the issue had not been resolved and was still ongoing, it said a higher award should be made.

Since it took a further three years to resolve the issues following the MoJ’s acceptance that its actions amounted to maladministration, the adjudicator’s opinion was that the distress and inconvenience caused fell into the exceptional category.

It concluded that the amount of distress and inconvenience awarded to Mr T should be increased to £3,000 to recognise the level of distress and inconvenience caused.

Mr T did not accept the adjudicator’s opinion, arguing that the amount of distress and inconvenience awarded was "derisory" and that an award of £10,000 was more appropriate.

The complaint was passed to the ombudsman, Dominic Harris, who agreed with the adjudicator’s decision.

In his decision, Harris said: “The non-financial injustice suffered was, in my view, exceptional and warrants, unusually, an award in excess of £2,000.

“I have taken into account the effort that Mr T put into corresponding with the respondent to correct the mistakes (although I disagree that entitles him to charge his daily rate for that time), as well as the other points he made.

“In the circumstances, I agree with the adjudicator that an award of £3,000 for exceptional non-financial injustice is appropriate.”

---