Department for Work and Pensions

6. Mr E complains that until August 2024 the DWP did not inform him about changes it made to the State Pension.

7. Mr E also complains the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) did not investigate all the concerns he raised about the DWP.

8. As a result of the DWP not informing him about State Pension changes, Mr E says he does not have a full state pension which affects his everyday life.

9. As a result of the ICE not investigating all of his concerns, he says it has not asked the DWP to increase his entitlement to the full state pension.

10. Mr E would like the DWP and the ICE to look at their decisions again.

11. Mr E contacted the DWP in May 2024 as he was not receiving the full State Pension rate. The DWP wrote to him to say he would not receive the full State Pension award because he was contracted out with the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme between 1978 and 1999.

12. People who pay or are treated as having paid (including via credits or voluntary contributions) enough National Insurance contributions (NICs) over the course of a tax year (between 6 April and 5 April) build up a ‘qualifying year’ of entitlement towards a State Pension.

13. The law on state pensions changed for people who reached State Pension age after 6 April 2016. It introduced the new State Pension.

14. The new State Pension replaced the ‘Basic State Pension’ and the earnings-related ‘Additional State Pension’ from April 2016. It set the number of qualifying years of NICs needed for the full, new State Pension at 35 (it had been 30 for the Basic State Pension).

15. The starting amount of new State Pension for people who have earned qualifying years before 6 April 2016, but who reach State Pension age on or after that date, is calculated according to ‘transitional arrangements’. The DWP compares what a person would be entitled to under both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ system rules. Their starting amount of new State Pension is the higher of these two calculations.

16. The DWP said it calculated Mr E’s amount using the old system rules because the pension would be higher.

17. People with private (personal or occupational) pensions sometimes ‘contracted out’ of the Additional State Pension in the past. Those people gave up their entitlement to the Additional State Pension for the period they contracted out in exchange for either paying lower NICs, or some of their NICs being redirected into their private pension scheme.

18. Mr E’s membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme meant he was contracted out of the Additional State Pension between 1978 and 1999.

19. When calculating a person’s starting amount of new State Pension, the DWP makes a deduction to account for times when that person has contracted out of the Additional State Pension. So, some people with enough qualifying years for a full new State Pension (35 years or more) may find they are entitled to a starting amount lower than the full rate.

20. The transitional arrangements also allow people to do things to add to their starting amount of new State Pension if it is lower than the full rate, regardless of the number of qualifying years they have. This includes continuing to pay further qualifying years of NICs, making voluntary payments to ‘buy back’ gaps in their NICs record, and/or claiming certain benefits that add credits to their NICs record.

21. Public information published from 2015 about the new State Pension said: ‘If you were contracted out before 6 April 2016, you might not get the full rate new State Pension’.

22. After Mr E contacted the DWP, it found there was an additional qualifying year which it had added to his NI record in September 2020. DWP found it had not calculated this additional year in his original State Pension calculations. The DWP issued the arrears for that period to Mr E with a £150 consolatory payment and £112.53 for the erosion of the monetary value.

23. After complaining to the DWP about its lack of communication about changes to the State Pension, Mr E remained unsatisfied, so he complained to the ICE in December 2024.

Issue 1 – DWP’s communication of the new State Pension

27. Mr E said the DWP did not adequately communicate state pension changes to him. He said he did not know that changes to the state pension in 2016 meant he needed to obtain extra pension credits to receive the full amount. He said between 2016 to 2018 he could have obtained extra credits had he known about the changes.

28. The DWP said when the rules changed for State Pension in 2016 it shared information in national and regional press, radio and online advertising. It also said, ‘More detailed messages about contracting out, how to increase your SP through NI credits, voluntary contributions or deferral, and information about the SP top up scheme (for people already claiming the State Pension) ran in advertorials placed in targeted consumer and regional media’.

29. In March 2024, we published an investigation into complaints that the DWP had failed to provide accurate, adequate and timely information about areas of State Pension reform.

30. Among other things, we found that research showed too many people did not understand their own situations or how the new State Pension affected them personally. The gap between awareness and understanding was highlighted by the Work and Pensions Committee and the National Audit Office. We found DWP failed to use this research and feedback to improve its service and performance.

31. We did not find that the complainants in our investigation suffered an injustice because of failings in DWP’s communication. But we said it was possible others had lost opportunities to add qualifying years to their NICs record to improve their starting amount.

32. We asked Parliament to intervene and identify an appropriate remedy for those affected. We shared with Parliament what we thought that remedy may look like in terms of an acknowledgement, apology, service improvements, and financial remedy for anyone who can show they lost opportunities to add to their NICs record. The full findings of our investigation are available here.

33. The Government published its response to our investigation in December 2024. It did not accept our findings and recommendations for remedy in relation to communication about the new State Pension. The Government’s response is available here.

34. Mr E’s complaint is linked to the findings of that investigation into the communication of new State Pension reform. We have already investigated this issue and made findings about it. As such, we have decided that we should not investigate the issue again.

35. We appreciate that Mr E was surprised to learn that he would not get the maximum amount of pension. We also recognise that he considers he lost the opportunity to improve his State Pension position.

36. We know that Mr E not receiving a full State Pension has financial implications for his day-to-day life and we are sorry for this.

37. We hope Mr E finds the reasons for our decision above helpful in understanding why we have ended matters without further investigation.

Issue 2 – ICE complaint handling

38. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

39. Our Complaint Standards say, ‘Colleagues actively listen and demonstrate a clear understanding of what the main issues are for the service user who has made the complaint, and the outcomes they seek’.

40. Mr E said the ICE did not investigate his complaints fully. He said staff did not check they had all of the relevant details for his complaint and they should have contacted him to make a telephone appointment.

41. The ICE said in July 2025 an investigator attempted to call Mr E twice. It said as they were unsuccessful, the investigator sent an email on the same day to state the elements of the complaint it would consider and provided their contact details. It said Mr E did not contact the ICE until after it issued its decision in September 2025.

42. From information that ICE and Mr E sent to us, we can see an investigator emailed him in July 2025. They said they attempted to contact Mr E by telephone and were unsuccessful. They set out the summary of their planned investigation. The email also included their contact details and times when they are usually available.

43. Mr E said he was unsure if an investigator telephoned him or not. We cannot say for certain if the investigator telephoned Mr E, but we see no reason to doubt that they attempted this.

44. While the investigator did not discuss the complaint with Mr E by phone, they did email him the complaint summary and provide their contact details. The investigator outlined their understanding of what the main issues were for Mr E. The next email provided to us showed that Mr E contacted the ICE after it issued its report in mid-September 2025.

45. Mr E had approximately two months to contact the investigator to let them know the summary was incorrect and they did not do this while the ICE investigated his case.

46. From the evidence we have seen, the ICE acted in line with our Complaint Standards as they emailed Mr E to confirm their understanding of the main issues after unsuccessfully attempting to call him. We would not expect the ICE to delay its investigation unduly while it waits for a complainant to call.

47. As we have not found any indications of failings with the ICE’s complaint handling, we will take no further action on this complaint issue.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP) and the Independent Case Examiner (the ICE).

2. We are sorry to hear Mr E does not receive the full state pension after a career in the Armed Forces. We know this impacts both him and his family.

3. After considering Mr E’s complaint about changes to the State Pension, we cannot take any further action. This is because, we have already investigated this issue and reached a view on it.

4. After considering the evidence we received from Mr E and the ICE regarding complaint handling, we have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

5. Our decision statement below explains our thinking in more detail.