This piece was originally a comment – it is from Mike Otsuka

I’d like to elaborate on the following sentence in Jackie Grant’s post:

“Even more astonishingly, what they have been doing, since at least 2016, was not even in the Scheme Rules until they retroactively amended them in May of this year. So it’s opaque.”

This draws attention to the fact that USS had literally been acting in breach of trust in their revaluation of the pensions of tens of thousands of members who have ceased service since April 2016.

It was only as the result of my drawing to their attention over a year ago that they had revalued my own pension in breach of the rules upon my ceasing service in August 2022, that USS became aware of this problem and hence the need to amend the rules to try to patch things up.

In late July of 2024, I wrote to the chair and a senior executive of USS to inform them of my belief that, upon our retirement or deferral during the past decade, USS had undervalued my and tens of thousands of other member pensions, in many cases making us hundreds of pounds worse off in our annual pension than that which we are due.

In their communication on “Active and Proportionate Revaluation” to which Jackie provides a link, UCU states the following position which is in alignment with my own:

“UCU had sought an outcome to this complex matter whereby no scheme member would suffer from … any potential loss relative to what we believe they are due: namely no less than a revaluation each April based on the previous September’s annual rate of CPI (subject to caps in some cases).”

In making the following statement on p. 9 of their 2025 Report and Accounts which they published in late July, USS has now publicly acknowledged that they had been acting in breach of the rules:

“1 material breach: Scheme Rules breach occurred due to more generous operational practice for some members than the Scheme Rules provided, which are now amended.”

As indicated, USS also maintains (contrary to my own view) that their rule breach was not detrimental to any member. I remain in dispute with USS over this, have entered into IDR with them, and will take this to the Pensions Ombudsman if necessary.

I would like to be able to publicly dispute USS’s view and to alert the tens of thousands of affected members that I believe that they have claims against USS which they should press with the Pensions Ombudsman if USS denies them.

However, USS has so far refused to allow me to share their correspondence to me in which they set out their positions that I would like to dispute.

Both UCU and I believe that USS should be more forthcoming in explaining how their rule breach arose, how they amended the rules, and why they believe they were justified in amending the rules as they did.

I am of the opinion that USS’s reticence is at least partially explained by the fact that such disclosure would reveal serious maladministration and misrepresentation on their part, which it would be an embarrassment to them to become public.

UCU’s communication states that

“USS sought the consent of the JNC to amend the Rules to retrospectively align them to the operational practice USS believed was the intention of the JNC at the time”.

However, UCU also notes that “UCU had expressed a different view” regarding JNC intention.

I would encourage members of the media to get in touch with USS to press them on the issues raised in UCU’s communication. Questions and requests such as the following might be useful in helping to uncover the serious maladministration that I am of the opinion has occurred:

— Please provide more details regarding the rule breach you refer to on p. 9 of your Report and Accounts.

— Why were the rules written in a manner that needed to be amended?

— Why was this problem left unaddressed for nearly ten years?

— Why have you waited until July of 2025 to provide any sort of detailed account of the highly unusual method of revaluation you have been applying to past DB accrual upon a member’s ceasing service? Do you acknowledge that it was contrary to the interests of members to have been kept in the dark about this method, thereby rendering it impossible for them to protect themselves against the perversity, as Jackie’s post spells out, that putting in extra contributions can actually decrease the value of the pension one receives in retirement?

— What is the difference of opinion between you and UCU regarding JNC intention that is referred to in UCU’s press release, and how does the issue of JNC intention bear on the justification for your amendment?

— Why have you refused permission to Michael Otsuka to publicly disclose your own position, which you have set out in detail in your letters to him? How can such a lack of transparency be in the interests of scheme members?

Without breaching confidentiality, I would be happy to discuss matters further with members of the press.

Finally, I’d like to express my admiration for Jackie’s characteristically careful and accurate analysis  of yet another problem with USS. Thousands of scheme members owe Jackie and other UCU union members and alternates on JNC a debt of gratitude for their efforts to correct this problem.

Michael Otsuka