Now Pensions Trust · CAS-74570-V0T1

CAS-74570-V0T1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr Y

Plan NOW: Pensions Trust (the Plan)

Respondent NOW: Pensions (NOW)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties

1 CAS-74570-V0T1

2 CAS-74570-V0T1

• Once a member is enrolled, an employer has a legal obligation to deduct contributions. The member’s consent is not required for this.

• It apologised for telling Mr Y that it was NOW’s standard procedure to provide enrolment communications via email.

• It accepted that it sent the Notice to an incorrect email address, which had been provided by the Employer. So, Mr Y was unaware that he needed to opt out.

• It offered Mr Y £76.38 in full and final settlement of his complaint. This consisted of a refund of employee and employer contributions, totalling £51.38, and £25 for distress and inconvenience.

Caseworker’s Opinion

• Mr Y’s complaint concerns the fact that he did not receive notification of his auto- enrolment into the Plan.

• NOW has said that the enrolment notice was emailed to an address given by Mr Y’s Employer on 16 November 2014, and it did not receive a “bounce back” email. NOW provided TPO with an Excel spreadsheet that showed the information the Employer provided. The Caseworker said he had no reason, on the balance of probabilities, to doubt its authenticity. Mr Y had said anyone could have made the spreadsheet up, but the Caseworker said that there was nothing to suggest that the plan provider had sent fabricated evidence. The Caseworker was of the view that Mr Y’s complaint was the result of an error by the Employer.

• He noted that The Pensions Regulator (TPR) provided guidance to employers in relation to auto-enrolment. This guidance listed the communication methods that it considers appropriate for sending information. Included in the list are the body of

3 CAS-74570-V0T1 an email and an email with appropriate attachments. Therefore, he did not agree that NOW had to also post the enrolment notice to Mr Y.

• He acknowledged Mr Y’s frustration that, due to the Employer not giving NOW his correct email address, he had not read and acted on the Notice in time to opt out of the Plan. However, in his view, Mr Y had not suffered a financial loss as a result of the maladministration by the Employer.

• The Caseworker noted that the money that Mr Y had contributed had been refunded to him. In addition, NOW had also refunded the employer’s contribution. Had he opted out, he would have only been entitled to a refund of his contributions. An Ombudsman would only look to put an applicant back in the position they would have been in had an error not occurred. So, there was an argument that Mr Y was in a better position than he would have been in had he been opted out in the first place.

• Furthermore, NOW has also paid Mr Y £25 for the distress and inconvenience it caused him when it investigated his complaint.

• In conclusion, I do not accept that there has been maladministration by NOW. It acted on the information provided by the Employer. Mr Y has not suffered a monetary loss as a result.

• Please escalate my complaint to be properly evaluated.

Ombudsman’s decision

4 CAS-74570-V0T1

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 30 January 2023

5