The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against the South Wales Fire & Rescue Authority and Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council for maladministration.

However, another complaint under similar circumstances against the same authority and council was not upheld.

Mr S complained that the South Wales Fire & Rescue Authority’s maladministration in failing to implement an amendment to the Firemen’s Pension Scheme Order (1992), asserting that he had suffered a financial loss because of this.

In 2017, Mr S requested retirement quotations for the benefits he could receive at retirement, which informed him that, at retirement, he could receive an annual pension of £23,784.99 and a lump sum of £167,191.51.

Mr S retired in August 2017 and received the benefits on the quotation.

However, due to the authority not implementing a new rule regarding the promotion of firefighters and increases in salary in their pensionable pay calculation, Mr S’ final salary figures used to calculate his pension benefits were inflated.

The Fire and Rescue Service, where he was employed, wrote to Mr S to inform him that all future pension payments made after 31 March 2019 had to be adjusted but confirmed that it would not recover any previous overpayment of a lump sum or pension already paid, up to 1 April 2019.

Mr S complained through the first stage of the scheme’s Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP).

He stated that his decision to retire was based on retirement figures received from the council and he would need to seek further employment due to this reduction in pension.

The service said although they understood Mr S’ concerns there was nothing further it could do, Mr S appealed this.

Under stage two of IDRP, the members of the Fire and Rescue Authority said that the remedy was to put the correct benefits into payment and not pay the incorrect benefits and said it would not recover the overpayment.

Mr S then submitted evidence of the impact of the maladministration but the authority said that Mr S was not entitled to any losses as he had not acted to his detriment and would not have acted any differently had he known the correct position.

However, pensions ombudsman, Dominic Harris, said that Mr S had provided all the evidence he could feasibly have, to demonstrate that he clearly met the standard of the balance of probabilities in this case, that he would have remained employed until April 2020.

On 3 September 2024, Harris sent Mr S and the authority his preliminary decision, which upheld this complaint in relation to maladministration and said that the authority should pay Mr S £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience this situation caused him.

In addition to this, Harris stated that the authority should calculate the loss Mr S incurred at the date of the determination for the financial loss he suffered due to relying on incorrect information they provided.

“Mr S reasonably relied on incorrect information he received from the council and has suffered a financial loss, as a result of the authority’s maladministration in failing to apply the rule governing the scheme properly and has suffered serious distress and inconvenience due to this,” TPO said.

The South Wales Fire & Rescue Authority also received a complaint from Mr R about its maladministration in failing to implement an amendment to the rules of the Firemen’s Pension Scheme order (1992), suggesting that this caused him to rely on incorrect information from the council to decide to retire and had suffered a financial loss as a result.

However, this was not upheld as the ombudsman said that Mr R would not have acted differently, had he not received the correct information.

Mr R complained about the same rule change as Mr S through stage one of the scheme’s IDRP after receiving a letter about the implementation of the new rule.

The service replied to his complaint and said that although they understood Mr R’s concerns there was nothing further it could do, Mr R then appealed this decision.

Harris said that after considering the information provided by all parties, had Mr R been provided with the correct figures, he would not have acted differently.

He added that the information submitted by Mr R about wanting to spend more time caring for his father, which would have been difficult to manage when working full-time, and the reduction of his mortgage was evidence that he would not have acted differently if the information was known.

Therefore, Harris decided not to uphold Mr R’s complaint in relation to this point.

However, Harris clarified that the Authority's failure to implement the new rule appropriately amounted to maladministration, and this caused Mr "severe distress and inconvenience".

Despite this, he said that he did not direct any additional sum to be paid in recognition of this, given that the authority has decided not to seek recovery of the overpaid sums, which would exceed the level of award TPO can give.

"I considered that by not seeking recovery of the overpaid sums, the authority had provided more than adequate recompense for its maladministration," he stated.

---