BDO says final salary members could claim windfalls

According to John Broome Saunders, actuarial director of BDO, as a result of the famous 'Barber' court ruling in 1990, all pension schemes were forced to treat males and females equally.

For schemes that had previously had different retirement ages for males and females - typically 65 and 60 respectively - this ruling equalised retirement ages at age 60.

Many schemes subsequently amended their rules to bring retirement age for males and females back to 65.

Mr Broome Saunders said: "We are now discovering a number of cases where that amendment wasn't made in accordance with the scheme rules.

"For example, many schemes require rule changes to be implemented through a legally binding deed of amendment.

"Simply issuing an announcement to members often isn't good enough."

According to Mr Broome Saunders, in cases where the amendment hasn't been made properly, members may find that they still technically have a retirement age of 60, thanks to the original Barber court ruling.

He said that in practice, this could be equivalent to a 20 per cent higher pension than they might have expected at that age.

However Mr Broome Saunders added that this issue is being brushed under the carpet by many advisors.

He said: "For some schemes, the additional liabilities as a result of this sort of cock-up could be substantial.

"If an amendment wasn't made properly, there's a good case for claiming that loss against whoever was advising the scheme at the time.

"So members may want to carry out a little bit of research work themselves.

"If you know your scheme once had different retirement ages for males and females, request a copy of the trust deed and rules, and a copy of any deeds relating to changes to retirement age."