HL UK Pensions Law Digest 16 June 2025

Welcome to our latest update, in which we cover: 

• Pensions Regulator (TPR): completing the jigsaw
  • A blog from TPR welcoming the opportunities presented by the Pension Schemes Bill;
• Pensions Ombudsman (PO): Operating Model Review
  • A blog explaining how the PO will continue to streamline cases, attempting to reduce the time for complaints to be resolved;
• Enforcement of debt against pension assets
  • The High Court has enabled a creditor to enforce a judgment debt against the debtor’s personal pension fund;
• Defined contribution (DC) investment
  • A report from the DC Investment Forum considers barriers and opportunities to DC investment in productive finance.

Pensions Regulator: completing the jigsaw

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published a blog by Nausicaa Delfas, TPR Chief Executive, commenting on the Pension Schemes Bill and other initiatives underway to “unlock transformational opportunities” for reforming the UK pension system. TPR comments that the Bill promises to be the most significant moment for pensions since the start of auto-enrolment in 2012.

The blog contains a reminder that, following publication of the Bill and TPR’s recent endgame guidance, TPR expects DB trustees to have plans ready for responding to a request by the sponsoring employer to release surplus from their scheme.

Return to Contents.

Pensions Ombudsman: Operating Model Review – more work than ever

According to a recent blog, 2024/25 was an unprecedented year for the Pensions Ombudsman (PO), with the number of new cases outstripping expectations. Disappointingly, waiting times for case resolution remained the same, despite best efforts from the PO and his staff and the introduction of the PO’s new operating model.

Ways in which the PO intends to streamline cases include:

• Raising awareness that the scheme’s internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP) must be completed before the PO will accept a complaint;
• Exploring thresholds to ensure that the PO focuses on cases which cannot be resolved elsewhere;
• Increased use of expedited and short-form determinations;
• Requiring formal responses from respondents earlier in the process; and
• Providing customer guidance for schemes to share with members.

Return to Contents.

Judgment debt enforced against member’s SIPP

• In a recent case (Century Property (Leeds) Ltd v Dr Aldiss and ors), the High Court made orders to enable a creditor to enforce a judgment debt of £450,000 owed by Dr A, by drawing funds from Dr A’s self-invested personal pension (SIPP) soon after his 55^th birthday in August 2025.
• In doing so, the Court followed a line of case law enabling creditors to access funds in debtors’ personal pension arrangements. Factors the Court considered when deciding whether it was just and convenient to make the orders sought in Dr A’s case included:
  • The value of Dr A’s SIPP fund (£618,000) was sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt;
  • Following previous case law, the fact that some of the lump sum taken from the SIPP would be taxed was of minor importance;
  • There was no evidence of Dr A having other creditors, nor of Dr A having any other assets against which the debt could be enforced;
  • The creditor had acted promptly and appropriately at all stages of the enforcement proceedings; and
  • Dr A’s failure to pay an earlier instalment of the debt, and his actions seeking to delay the enforcement proceedings, meant that it was necessary for the creditor to apply for a Court order to satisfy the judgement debt.
• Given Dr A’s previous conduct, the Court orders included a “default provision”, allowing the creditor’s solicitors to sign the relevant pension documentation on Dr A’s behalf, should he fail to do so himself.

Return to Contents.

Report: the Future of DC Asset Allocation

• The Defined Contribution Investment Forum (DCIF) has issued a Report, exploring some of the current debates about investment by defined contribution (DC) funds in productive finance, in particular whether DC investment can be aligned with national goals without compromising outcomes for members.
• The Report considers current barriers to productive investment, including: the charge cap on auto-enrolment default funds; limited governance capacity, especially in smaller schemes; regulatory complexity; and ongoing reliance by smaller schemes on insurance platforms not designed for illiquid investment.
• When making international comparisons, it is important to bear in mind the fundamental differences between countries’ economies and pension systems. The Report looks at DC pension systems in Australia, Canada and New Zealand and points out that, in Australia, domestic pension investment is encouraged by dividend tax credits (unlike in the UK) and fees are materially higher.
• The Report discusses how the government could incentivise UK and private market investment, including through: tax incentives (by reintroducing dividend tax credits and removing stamp duty on UK-listed shares); risk-sharing arrangements and government guarantees to help mitigate downside risk; and state-backed infrastructure bonds with long-dated, inflation-linked returns.

Return to Contents.

Authored by Jill Clucas.