True Potential Pension · CAS-45488-D8T5

CAS-45488-D8T5

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr Y

Scheme True Potential Pension (the Scheme)

Respondent Wolverhampton Lifting Ltd (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the salient points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between the parties.

On 1 July 2017, Mr Y began his employment with the Employer.

At some point in the 2017/2018 tax year, pension contributions began to be deducted from his pay.

Mr Y provided copies of payslips he held covering the period from March 2018 to September 2019 which detailed the pension contributions deducted from his pay and the corresponding employer contributions. Mr Y said that the contributions, which CAS-45488-D8T5 were never paid into his pension, amounted to £2,747.60. A breakdown of the contributions 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 as to the facts of the case, including the dates and amounts of contributions involved. She said that, as the Employer has not provided a satisfactory response to any of TPO’s communications, her Opinion was based solely on the information provided by Mr Y.

• The Caseworker said that she had no reason to doubt the payslips and pension valuation provided by Mr Y. So, in the Caseworker’s Opinion, it was likely that the contributions, that had been deducted from Mr Y’s salary, 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, Mr Y had suffered a financial loss.

• In the Caseworker’s view, Mr Y had experienced significant distress and inconvenience due to the Employer’s maladministration. The Adjudicator was of the view that an award of £500 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in the circumstances.

2 CAS-45488-D8T5

• It was prepared to pay all of the unpaid contributions.

• However, it was not willing to make a payment in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. It said that Mr Y had not conducted himself correctly when working for the Employer. It also said that Mr Y owed it money because he took paid holiday that he was not entitled to. So, it was not willing to make the additional payment.

Ombudsman’s decision

Directions

(i) pay Mr Y £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience he has experienced;

3 CAS-45488-D8T5 (ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Mr Y’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 Mr Y.

(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 Mr Y‘s Scheme account than he would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

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

Within 14 days of receiving confirmation from the Scheme of any shortfall in Mr Y’s units, pay the cost of purchasing any additional units required to make up the shortfall.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 16 September 2022

4 CAS-45488-D8T5 Appendix Date Employee contributions Employer contributions

March 2018 to 5 April 2018 £64.99 £81.25

6 April 2018 to 5 April 2019 £805.19 £670.82

6 April 2019 to 27 September 2019 £643.04 £482.31

5