Nest Scheme · CAS-40993-J9L4

CAS-40993-J9L4

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr Y

Scheme NEST (the Scheme)

Respondent PSDT Limited (PSDT)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mr Y has complained that his former employer, PSDT, has failed to pay all the pension contributions due to be paid for him to the Scheme.

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-40993-J9L4

The Scheme wrote to Mr Y on 1 October 2019 to tell him that the contributions for April 2019, totalling £291.67 (£125.00 employer contribution plus £166.67 personal contribution) had not been paid and that it had reported PSDT to The Pensions Regulator (TPR).

Adjudicator’s Opinion

2 CAS-40993-J9L4

Mr Y accepted the Adjudicator's Opinion. However, PSDT did not respond to the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Having done so, I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion except with regard to the addition of the assumed 8% investment growth.

Ombudsman’s decision There is a regulatory requirement under the Personal Pension Schemes (Payments by Employers) Regulations 2000, for PSDT to pay the contributions into the Scheme on the due dates. Despite several requests for it to do so, PSDT has failed to provide a satisfactory reason as to why this was not done in Mr Y’s case.

Whilst he was still employed by PSDT, and since he left, Mr Y has been trying to establish, without success, what has happened to his pension contributions.

PSDT has shown a complete disregard of its responsibilities and legal requirements. It has not engaged with either my Office or Mr Y. It has also failed to respond to the

3 CAS-40993-J9L4 Adjudicator’s Opinion and has not remedied matters, as recommended by the Adjudicator. This amounts to maladministration.

PSDT’s failure to acknowledge my Adjudicator’s requests for a response to the complaints, and also its refusal to engage with Mr Y, would have caused Mr Y further distress and inconvenience. So, I have taken this into consideration in increasing my award for the serious distress and inconvenience Mr Y has suffered.

The Adjudicator recommended the addition of 8% assumed investment growth in calculating the loss incurred by Mr Y. I consider it more equitable for the Scheme to be asked to calculate any loss in investment growth based on the assumption the unpaid contributions were paid on the due dates and invested in the same fund(s) as the June 2019 contribution.

I will be submitting a report to TPR in respect of PSDT’s failure to comply with the auto enrolment Regulations.

Directions

• pay to the Scheme the £500.00 unpaid employer contributions and £728.22 unpaid employee contributions;

• request the Scheme to calculate any loss of investment from the due date of payment of each contribution to the date the contributions are paid into the Scheme, based on the assumption the contributions were invested in the same funds, and in the same proportions, as the June 2019 contribution;

• make good any loss of investment, by paying additional monies into the Scheme as a lump sum to be invested in Mr Y’s account, within 21 days of receiving the calculations from the Scheme;

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 17 July 2020

4