The retrospective certification regime introduced in response to the Virgin Media ruling will help many pension schemes resolve historic benefit amendment issues, but will not provide a universal solution, the Pensions Management Institute (PMI) has warned.

In a blog, PMI Policy and Public Affairs Working Group members, Aon associate partner, Joe Moore, and Vidett Trustee Oversight Board chair, Julia Yates, said the legislative response contained in the Pension Schemes Act 2026 was a “welcome and pragmatic development”.

However, they cautioned that access to the easement would depend on schemes meeting the relevant statutory conditions and applying them carefully to their individual circumstances.

The Virgin Media judgment raised the prospect that historic benefit amendments could be void where schemes were unable to demonstrate that the required section 37 actuarial confirmation had been obtained.

According to Moore and Yates, the ruling transformed what may previously have been viewed as a technical compliance matter into a potentially widespread legal and financial risk for trustees and sponsors.

While many schemes adopted a “wait and see” approach in anticipation of legislative relief, others began reviewing historical records, often encountering incomplete documentation of changes made decades earlier.

The authors stressed that an inability to locate a historic confirmation did not prove that one had never existed, particularly where trustees had no reason to believe the required process had not been followed.

“The result was significant legal uncertainty and potentially material financial implications,” they noted, adding that coordinated industry pressure from the PMI and other organisations had helped secure the legislative response.

The retrospective certification regime now provides a route for schemes to validate certain historic amendments that might otherwise be vulnerable following the Virgin Media judgment.

Moore and Yates said this was likely to remove residual legal and funding uncertainty for many schemes, but warned that certification could remain difficult in some cases, potentially placing scheme actuaries in an “awkward position” despite guidance published by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).

The easement also contains exclusions, including where trustees have already taken positive action on the basis that an amendment was void or where related legal proceedings are underway.

Further uncertainty remains ahead of the judgment in the related Verity case, which is expected to consider additional questions arising from Virgin Media, including whether certification was required when a scheme closed to future accrual.

As a result, Moore and Yates suggested some trustees and sponsors may continue to wait before taking further action.

The blog identified three broad approaches emerging among trustee boards.

The first group comprises schemes with other immediate priorities, no short-term insurance or other transaction planned, and no specific reason to believe the necessary confirmations were not obtained.

For these schemes, the authors said the legislation did not impose an immediate requirement to search for historical records or to seek retrospective certification, particularly given the associated costs and administrative work.

They may instead wait for the Verity judgment in the hope that it narrows the scope of any eventual review.

The second group consists of trustees seeking to address the issue immediately, potentially to remove uncertainty from their scheme.

Moore and Yates suggested these trustees should begin with legal advice and, where possible, engage proactively with the sponsoring employer.

A third group covers schemes facing more complex circumstances, including those where retrospective certification is not straightforward, further analysis is needed, or the appropriate approach may depend on the Verity judgment.

Irrespective of the route selected, the authors argued that trustees should demonstrate that their approach was reasonable, proportionate and informed by professional advice.

Meanwhile, sponsors are also likely to continue facing scrutiny from auditors, despite the availability of a legislative remedy.

Moore and Yates predicted that audit attention would increasingly focus on how schemes had responded to the ruling, including whether retrospective certification had been used and what evidence supported the chosen approach.

They warned that companies would therefore need to ensure that their position was backed by appropriate legal and actuarial input and supported by clear documentation.

“The called-for legislative response is a welcome development, balancing legal integrity with practical reality,” they concluded.

“However, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The industry now has the tools to resolve most issues. The task for trustees and practitioners is to apply them with appropriate judgement and proportionality.”

---