• GL
Choose your location?
  • Global Global
  • Australia
  • France
  • Germany
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Poland
  • Qatar
  • Spain
  • UAE
  • UK

BT fails to switch pension increases from RPI to CPI

26 January 2018
The High Court concludes proposed switch from RPI to CPI is not valid on the basis that RPI has not " become inappropriate" as a measure of increase.

Summary

  • The case concerned a section of the pension scheme where the rules required pensions to be increased in line with RPI, or if this "becomes inappropriate" such other measure agreed by BT with the Trustee. 
  • Like many employers, BT sought to switch from RPI to CPI to reduce the scheme deficit. 
  • The High Court ruled the proposed switch was not valid.   
  • External industry views on the general "appropriateness" of RPI are of limited relevance where RPI is hard coded into pension scheme rules.   

Judgment

The Court decided it was an objective question for the Court to determine whether RPI had become inappropriate. 

The ordinary meaning of "becomes inappropriate" set a high hurdle to overcome. For example, if RPI was universally regarded as inappropriate for all other uses, but remained appropriate for measuring pension increases, it would nevertheless remain appropriate for the purpose of the increase rule i.e. to protect pensions against increases in the cost of living. 

The Court considered the criticisms levelled at RPI and the fact the government has abandoned the formula as an official measure of inflation. But the Court concluded this did not make RPI inappropriate for the purpose of increasing pensions. In particular, the Court noted:

  • the flaws in RPI relied upon by BT were known when the increase rule was introduced; and 
  • there was evidence CPI might under-estimate inflation which would lead to a material risk to pensioners, contrary to the purpose of the increase rule. 

Comment

The fact that jettisoning RPI would have led to a material risk for the pensioners demonstrates the Court's openness in considering more generally the protective purpose of the increase rule. 

Trustees managing schemes with pension increase provisions that adopt similar wording should consider whether RPI is wholly inappropriate to increase pensions and not merely less appropriate than an alternative measure. Trustees need to assess the primary purpose of the increase rule, without regard to wider views about RPI.

Much like the test for "replacement" in Barnardo's it seems that finding RPI to be "inappropriate" will be a very difficult test to meet short of RPI being discontinued altogether.

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set when you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Manage your cookies

Our use of cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set when you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Necessary cookies

(Required)

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

These cookies are required

Tracking cookies

Anonymous cookies that help us understand the performance of our website and how we can improve the website experience for our users. Some of these may be set by third parties we trust, such as Google Analytics.

They may also be used to personalise your experience on our website by remembering your preferences and settings.

Marketing cookies

These cookies are used to improve and personalise your experience with our brands. We may use these cookies to show adverts for our products, or measure the performance of our adverts.