Nest · CAS-119300-H7J6

CAS-119300-H7J6

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs A

Scheme NEST (the Scheme)

Respondent SWG Glasgow Limited (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

In August 2019, Mrs A began her employment with the Employer.

Between June 2023 and November 2023, the Employer failed to pay pension contributions into the Scheme.

On 23 February 2024, Mrs A brought her complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

Mrs A provided a copy of the payslip she held for October 2023, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay. This deduction amounted to £119.20 of employee contributions. A breakdown of the deduction has been included in the Appendix. The payslip did not show the employer contributions which have also not been paid into the Scheme. CAS-119300-H7J6 Mrs A was unable to provide payslips for the following months: -

• June 2023

• July 2023

• August 2023

• September 2023

• November 2023

Mrs A has provided letters from the Scheme Administrator for the period from June 2023 to November 2023, which detailed the employee and employer pension contributions that were unpaid. Based on the letters from the Scheme administrator, the pension contributions amounted to £540.54 of employee contributions and £494.80 of employer contributions for the months where no payslips were provided and the employer contribution missing from the October 2023 payslip.

The total outstanding contributions according to the payslips and the letters from the Scheme administrator provided by Mrs A amounted to £1,154.54.

On 28 June 2024, TPO wrote to the Employer to ask for more information in response to Mr T’s complaint. The Employer acknowledged the receipt of the email on the same day.

On 15 July 2024, TPO chased the Employer. The Employer acknowledged the receipt of the email and said it would respond in 48 hours.

On the same day, the Employer responded and said that the first email it had received was on 15 July 2024. TPO responded immediately and sent a copy of the email that was sent on 28 June 2024 to the Employer. The Employer failed to respond by the deadline.

On 2 August 2024, the Employer responded and said it was willing to resolve the matter within three weeks. However, it was not willing to agree to an action plan before Mrs A agreed to resolve the matter informally.

On 7 August 2024, Mrs A informed TPO that she was willing to wait three weeks for the Employer to resolve the matter.

On 8 August 2024, TPO asked the Employer to remit the outstanding pension contributions to Mrs A’s Scheme account by 9 September 2024.

On 9 August 2024, the Employer asked TPO for bank details to make the payment. TPO advised that the Employer should contact the Scheme administrator to make the payment, and also ask it to calculate the investment loss due to the late payment of the pension contributions.

2 CAS-119300-H7J6 On 12 September 2024, Mrs A confirmed that the outstanding pension contributions had not been paid into the Scheme by the agreed deadline.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

• The Adjudicator stated that TPO’s normal approach, in cases such as these, was to seek agreement from all parties on the facts of the complaint, including the dates and amounts of contributions involved. She said that, as the Employer had not fully engaged with TPO’s requests for it to provide its response, she had to base her Opinion solely on the information provided by Mrs A.

• Based on the information provided by Mrs A, £119.20 in employee contributions had not been remitted to the Scheme. The letters from the Scheme administrator, provided by Mrs A, detailed the employer contribution for October 2023, and the amount of contributions not paid into the Scheme for the months with no payslips. It was the Adjudicator’s view, on the balance of probabilities that £1,035.34 had not been remitted into the Scheme for these months. In taking this view, the Adjudicator had considered that the amounts shown on the letters from the Scheme administrator matched the deduction shown on the available October 2023 payslip provided by Mrs A.

• The Adjudicator said that she had no reason to doubt the information provided by Mrs A. So, in the Adjudicator’s Opinion, on the balance of probabilities, contributions had been deducted from Mrs A’s salary but had not been paid into the Scheme. In addition, the Employer had not paid any of the employer contributions that were due over the same period. As a result of its maladministration, Mrs A was not in the financial position she ought to be in.

• In the Adjudicator’s view, Mrs A had suffered serious distress and inconvenience due to the Employer’s maladministration. The Adjudicator was of the opinion that an award of £1,000 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ombudsman’s decision

3 CAS-119300-H7J6

Directions

(i) pay Mrs A £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience she has experienced;

(ii) £1,154.54 Mrs A’s Mrs A

;

(iii) establish with the Scheme administrator whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in Mrs A’s Scheme account than she would have otherwise secured had the contributions been paid on time; and

(iv) pay any reasonable administration fee should the Scheme administrator charge a fee for carrying out the above calculation.

4 CAS-119300-H7J6

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman

2 October 2024

5 CAS-119300-H7J6 Appendix Payslip Month Employee contributions (£) Employer contributions (£)

June 2023

July 2023

August 2023

September 2023

October 2023 119.20 *

November 2023

* The employer contribution is not included on the payslip

6