(1 min read)
The Pensions Ombudsman has awarded a scheme member £1000 for distress and inconvenience relating to the scheme administrator's failings relating to provision of pensions saving statements for annual allowance purposes. The Ombudsman found that the scheme administrator's failure to provide information in accordance with a commitment given to members amounted to maladministration notwithstanding that there was not actually a legal obligation to provide the information. We take a look at the Ombudsman's decision and its wider implications for pension scheme trustees.
A member has been awarded £1000 for distress and inconvenience relating to the scheme administrator's failings relating to provision of pensions saving statements for annual allowance purposes (Dr S CAS-60994-H2H2). The Ombudsman found that the scheme administrator's failure to provide information in accordance with a commitment given to members amounted to maladministration notwithstanding that there was not actually a legal obligation to provide the information.
Dr S was a member of two separate NHS pension schemes which both had the same scheme administrator. Dr S's pension growth for the two schemes combined took him over the annual allowance, but neither scheme individually did. This meant that the relevant legislation did not require the scheme administrator to send him a pensions saving statement in the absence of a request. However, in information provided on the member website and in cover letters sent to Dr S, the administrator had committed to provide a pensions saving statement when the member's combined pension growth in two schemes exceeded the annual allowance. The Ombudsman found that in such circumstances, the scheme administrator's failure to provide this service amounted to maladministration.
The scheme administrator had also failed in its duty to provide a pensions savings statement within 3 months of the member's request. Despite having requested a statement on 26 September 2019, Dr S had not received the relevant statement until 23 January, just six working days before the deadline for completing his self-assessment tax return. The Ombudsman said that this was clearly unacceptable.
Our thoughts
This case illustrates that if a scheme gives a commitment to a member which it then breaches, the Ombudsman may make a finding of maladministration despite the fact that the scheme was under no obligation to give that commitment. Where a scheme administrator's delay in providing information is not only a breach of a statutory obligation, but also makes it difficult for a member to complete a self-assessment tax return on time, this may also lead to a finding of maladministration.
