Smart Pension · CAS-39617-P0K0

CAS-39617-P0K0

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Miss S

Scheme Smart Pension (the Scheme)

Respondent Marchwood Engineering Limited (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties In August 2019, Miss S received an email from the Scheme to notify her that the Employer had failed to remit pension contributions to the Scheme since March 2019.

On 20 December 2019, Miss S stopped working for the Employer.

In October and December 2019, the Employer paid the contributions that were due from March 2019 to July 2019.

Despite these payments, contributions for August and September 2019 remain unpaid.

On 3 October 2019, Miss S brought a complaint about the unpaid contributions to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

Miss S provided copies of the payslips that she held for the period of August and September 2019 which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and

1 CAS-39617-P0K0 the corresponding employer contributions. These deductions amounted to £266.56. A breakdown of the deductions has been included in the Appendix.

Caseworker’s Opinion

• The Caseworker 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 responded to any of TPO’s communications, she had to base her Opinion solely on the information provided by Miss S.

• The Caseworker said that she had no reason to doubt the information provided by Miss S. So, in the Caseworker’s Opinion, on the balance of probabilities, contributions had been deducted from Miss S’ salary, that 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, Miss S was not in the financial position she ought to be in.

The Employer did not respond to the Caseworker’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. I agree with the Caseworker’s Opinion, except the level of award for maladministration.

Ombudsman’s decision

2 CAS-39617-P0K0

Therefore, I uphold Miss S’ complaint.

Directions

(i) pay Miss S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced;

(ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Miss S’ pay in respect of the period of her employment. The Schedule shall also include the corresponding employer contributions that were due to the Scheme; and

(iii) forward the Schedule to Miss S.

(i) pay the missing contributions to the Scheme;

(ii) establish with the Scheme whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in Miss S’ Scheme account than she would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

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

3 CAS-39617-P0K0

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 7 November 2022

4 CAS-39617-P0K0 Appendix Date Employee contributions Employer contributions

30 August 2019 £76.82 £46.09

30 September 2019 £89.78 £53.87

5