London Sovereign Section Peoples Pension · CAS-62281-J4S5

CAS-62281-J4S5

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr R

Scheme London Sovereign section of The People's Pension (the Scheme)

Respondent RATP Dev Transit London (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties Broadly, the Pensions Act 2008 stipulates that employers must automatically enrol certain workers into a pension scheme with effect from the employer’s staging date. Employers that are required to provide a pension scheme must:-

• Set up a pension scheme.

• Automatically enrol eligible workers into a qualifying pension scheme and deduct pension contributions from their pay.

• Provide specific information to groups of their workers within prescribed time limits.

• Complete a declaration of compliance using the Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) online service within five months of the start date of their legal duties.

Employers must pay pension contributions deducted from an employee’s pay to the pension provider by the 22nd day of the following month.

Mr R worked for London Sovereign, a subsidiary of the Employer. 1 CAS-62281-J4S5 Mr R was automatically enrolled into the Scheme by the Employer in December 2019. His pension pot was invested in the B&CE GI Fund and the B&CE Pre-Retirement Fund.

The Scheme was administered by The People’s Pension (TPP).

Between December 2019 and February 2020, the Employer deducted employee contributions from Mr R’s pay. Mr R was paid weekly, but the Employer paid contributions to TPP on a four-weekly basis along with the employer contributions that it was required to pay. The Employer used

At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, the Employer switched the Scheme to a salary sacrifice arrangement. Salary sacrifice is an agreement between the employer and member whereby the member forgoes part of their future earnings in return for a corresponding contribution by the employer to a pension scheme.

Between March and June 2020, the Employer paid contributions to TPP in respect of Mr R. This was shown as an employer contribution on Mr R’s payslip. During this time, Mr R was placed on “furlough”. Consequently, the contributions were based on the pay he received under the

On or around June 2020, Mr R’s employment transferred to London United Busways, a subsidiary of the Employer, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE Regulations). Mr R was automatically enrolled into a pension scheme with Legal & General.

• The contributions were paid at a rate of eight percent, which was the correct rate.

• The contributions were paid in accordance with pensions legislation and met its requirements.

• TPP could accept weekly contributions.

2 CAS-62281-J4S5

• Mr R’s pension contributions were paid to TPP on a four-weekly basis because TPP did not accept weekly payments. The contributions were paid on time.

• It had responded to all of Mr R’s queries in a timely manner. He had requested a breakdown of his pension contributions from March to June 2020; this information was provided on his payslips.

Mr R maintains that the Employer did not respond to his complaint.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

3 CAS-62281-J4S5

Mr R did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr R provided his further comments which do not change the outcome.

In summary, Mr R said:-

• The Employer deliberately removed “email content” when responding to his emails.

• The Employer was unaware of the role of TPO and initially refused to engage with TPO. When he asked why it had removed TPO from email chains, it said that TPO had “no right to know what was happening”, since it was a third party. It also said that he did not have the right to copy TPO into his email exchanges with the Employer or refer any issues to TPO.

• In his view, this constitutes maladministration.

I have taken into account the additional points raised by Mr R, but I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision Having carefully considered all the available evidence, I am satisfied that the Employer paid the correct level of contributions to the Scheme and provided a satisfactory response to the queries Mr R raised at the time.

4 CAS-62281-J4S5 Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 15 December 2023

5