Scottish Teachers Superannuation Scheme · CAS-42976-B4H7

CAS-42976-B4H7

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Ms Y

Scheme Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent University of the West of Scotland (UWS)

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 all the parties.

UWS employed Ms Y on a part-time basis. As part of her employment, UWS enrolled Ms Y into the final salary section of the Scheme.

Following a change in auto enrolment legislation, UWS sent all part-time employees a letter which advised them of the new changes and what needed to be done if they did not meet the new auto enrolment criteria. The new changes would only take effect if a new employment contract was signed.

Ms Y did not receive this letter, and as a result, was opted out of the Scheme when she signed her new employment contract. This is because Ms Y was unaware that she had not met the new auto enrolment criteria and needed to opt back into the Scheme following the legislative change.

Once the error was highlighted, it was agreed that Ms Y could make a payment to cover the missing contributions between August 2015 and August 2016. UWS paid the missing employer contributions at the same time.

1 CAS-42976-B4H7 On 22 January 2019, Ms Y submitted her retirement application form to Scottish Public Pensions Agency (SPPA), the Scheme administrators.

On 31 January 2019, SPPA contacted UWS regarding discrepancies in Ms Y’s pensionable pay. Once UWS provided SPPA with the correct pensionable pay, SPPA noticed further discrepancies in Ms Y’s holiday pay. In line with the Scheme regulations, SPPA expected contributions to be deducted from the holiday pay.

On 26 March 2019, SPPA emailed Ms Y to confirm it was discussing an issue with UWS regarding her holiday pay. SPPA stated that such contributions should have been deducted.

On 1 April 2019, SPPA emailed Ms Y and said that it was still awaiting a response from UWS regarding the issue concerning holiday pay contributions. It apologised that it could not provide a timescale.

On 4 April 2019, following an exchange of emails between UWS and Ms Y, UWS reiterated to Ms Y that all calculations were correct, and the contributions had been correctly deducted.

On 13 May 2019, SPPA confirmed to Ms Y that it would be visiting UWS to discuss a resolution to the missing contributions in respect of Ms Y’s holiday pay. Once the backdated contributions had been paid, it said that a retirement illustration could be sent. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.

On 17 May 2019, Ms Y made a complaint against UWS over the administration of her pension. Ms Y said that:-

• She had tried to begin the process of retiring in January 2019, but this had not been possible due to discrepancies with the pension data UWS sent to SPPA.

• As a result of the errors, she had been unable to plan for her financial future.

• SPPA informed UWS that there were missing contributions in relation to Ms Y’s holiday pay. However, UWS kept stating its calculations were correct.

• The Scheme regulations had not been followed.

• She had been recovering from heart surgery and her time could have been better spent in recovery, rather than dealing with errors by UWS.

On 21 May 2019, UWS emailed Ms Y to confirm that a meeting was arranged with SPPA for 31 May 2019 to resolve the ongoing issue.

On 31 May 2019, UWS emailed Ms Y to provide the outcome of the meeting. It said that:-

• There should have been additional contributions made into Ms Y’s pension totalling £566.75. This included £167.24 of employee contributions.

2 CAS-42976-B4H7 • If Ms Y agreed to this calculation, it would pay both the employee and employer contributions in recognition of the length of time it had taken to conclude the matter.

• The process had been changed going forward and additional checks had been added. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.

In September 2019, USW responded under stage two of the IDRP, and said that:-

• The previous apology and offer to pay the employee contributions of £167.24 had been deemed insufficient by Ms Y.

• It did uphold the complaint, however, it felt that the offer of £167.24 was fair and reasonable in the circumstances and would not look to increase this.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

3 CAS-42976-B4H7

Ms Y did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. I note the additional points raised by Ms Y but I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ms Y said that her situation warranted a higher award, as there were several errors that had a lasting effect over a prolonged period. Further, UWS was slow to put matters right.

Ombudsman’s decision

4 CAS-42976-B4H7

I uphold Ms Y’s complaint.

Directions

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 4 March 2022

5