The Pension Trap is the expression commonly used to describe a situation that can affect members of the Police Pension Scheme 2015 (the CARE Scheme) and who were formerly members of the Police Pension Scheme 1987 (PPS 87) and complete 30 years’ continuous pensionable service across the two schemes before they reach the age of 55.
Such members are entitled to take the pension they have accrued under PPS 87 immediately on completion of their 30 years’ service and can commute a quarter of that pension for a cash lump sum on favourable actuarial rates. This cohort of members can be as young as 48.
However, there is an issue in respect of the pension benefits they have accrued as members of the CARE Scheme since April 2015. The regulations governing the CARE Scheme do not permit members to take their pension from that scheme until they have reached the scheme’s Normal Minimum Pension Age (NMPA) of age 55.
This means that affected officers cannot take their benefits from the two schemes immediately and at the same time before age 55. This is what is known as the Pension Trap.
The Pension Trap can also affect former PPS 87 members who choose to access their benefits from that scheme after at least 25 years combined and continuous pensionable service, having reached age 50 but prior to reaching age 55.
Members affected by the Pension Trap are faced with the dilemma of having to make some unwelcome choices.
If they choose to take their PPS 87 pension immediately, then their pension accrued under the CARE Scheme is treated as a deferred pension which is payable from their State Pension Age (SPA) and may be as late as age 68. The deferred pension can be taken from age 55 but will be actuarially reduced for early payment prior to SPA, leading to a significant reduction of around 50%.
Alternatively, such members can carry on working and delay taking their pension from PPS 87 until they reach age 55 which means that they can take their pension from the CARE Scheme at the same time. The CARE Scheme pension will only be actuarially reduced for payment prior to the scheme’s Normal Pension Age (NPA) of 60, a reduction of 22.5%.
Members will have accrued further pension in the CARE Scheme due to their continued membership and the final salary link will continue to apply meaning that their PPS 87 pension will be calculated using their salary when they actually retire.
However, the downside to this approach is that members will have to remain in the service for longer than anticipated or intended. Also, when they do eventually take their PPS 87 pension, the commutation factors applicable will be less generous.
Over several years, the Federation has raised this issue repeatedly with successive Governments. Despite our efforts, the Government has consistently defended the legislation, maintaining that it is lawful and compliant with existing pension regulations.
What did legal experts tell us?
To ensure we explored all available options, PFEW sought advice from three separate King’s Counsel (KCs) between 2023 and 2025 — each highly experienced in pensions and discrimination law.
Despite our efforts and the clear personal impact on some members, even the strongest test cases we could present were not considered likely to succeed in court.
We asked detailed follow-up questions, tested multiple legal arguments (including age discrimination and pensions law), and ensured no angle was overlooked.
All three reached the same conclusion: there is no realistic or viable legal basis to challenge the Pension Trap.
While, based on what we know, there currently isn’t a claim to pursue, we will continue to monitor the situation and keep our options open.
The legal experts cited the following reasons:
• Pension schemes are legally permitted to set different retirement ages for different groups, such as active and deferred members.
• Officers retiring earlier may receive their pensions for a longer period and, from an actuarial perspective, are not seen to be at a financial disadvantage overall.
• Even where a disadvantage exists, it is lawful for the Government to incentivise officers to serve until age 55.
One of the KCs was directly asked whether they could represent PFEW members in age discrimination claims related to this issue.
Their reply was that they would likely have to decline such instructions. Under the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct, barristers must not pursue arguments they do not believe are properly arguable — and in their professional opinion, these claims do not meet that standard.
How this differs from past pension litigation
Some members may recall the previous pension discrimination case (known as the Police Pensions Challenge). That case differed in several key ways:
• It involved different issues (transitional provisions, not the structure of the schemes themselves).
• The Federation only took advice from one KC at the time.
• The Tribunal found that the Federation had actively discouraged members from joining the claim.
This time, the National Board has taken a more careful, open, and legally sound approach — consulting three independent experts and not discouraging members from exploring their own legal options.
What happens next?
Based on this consistent and expert advice, PFEW has concluded it cannot support any legal action in relation to the Pension Trap.
While we fully understand and share members’ frustration, we must be honest: under current law, the situation is unfair but not unlawful.
We remain fully committed to fighting for fair pensions and will keep an open mind about taking further action if new cases or fresh evidence emerges. However, we must also be cautious.
If we push too hard to change pension laws, it could backfire — the Government might take that opportunity to introduce a new system that could leave members worse off in the long run.
We know this news will disappoint many of you, but we hope you can see that we are being as open and honest as possible about what is legally achievable.
If you would like to view the legal advice PFEW obtained then please contact your local Branch Board office who will facilitate access to the advice.
Alongside this, we continue to work every day to fight for better pay, pensions, and working conditions for you, our members.
Our “Copped Enough” campaign calls for a new settlement for police officers — one that properly values police work and helps ensure safe communities for all.
Your wellbeing and financial security remain at the heart of everything we do.