Pensions Ombudsman determination

Nest · CAS-83010-S5D1

Complaint upheldRedress £1,0002022
Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

Verbatim text of this Pensions Ombudsman determination. Sourced directly from the Pensions Ombudsman published register. The Pensions Ombudsman is a statutory tribunal — its determinations are public record. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase.

Full determination

CAS-83010-S5D1

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs A Scheme NEST (the Scheme) Respondent Dravens Healthcare Ltd (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties and timeline of events 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.

Mrs A has provided copies of the payslips that she held for the period from January 2019 to December 2021, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and the corresponding employer contributions. These contributions amounted to £4,128.23. A breakdown of the deductions, as supplied by Mrs A, has been included in the Appendix.

The Employer paid £723.33 to NEST between January 2019 and December 2021. So, there was a shortfall of £3,481.20 that should have been paid into the Scheme.

1 CAS-83010-S5D1

Caseworker’s Opinion

The Employer did not accept the Caseworker’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider.

The Employer provided its further comments which do not change the outcome. In summary, it said:-

• It paid the October, November and December 2021 pension contributions on 30 May 2022. This payment was £443.51. A further payment of £407.20 was paid into the NEST account on 1 August 2022.

2 CAS-83010-S5D1 • As of 17 August 2022, it had paid a total of £1,199.08 into the NEST account and the total amount left to be paid was £2,282.12. It will continue paying monthly until the payment is fully cleared. However, it hasn’t committed to a payment plan because he said the Pensions Regulator told him this was unnecessary.

• It did not agree to pay Mrs P any further compensation and said it was unable to afford this.

• I note the additional points raised by the Employer, but I agree with the Caseworker’s Opinion, except the level of award for maladministration.

Ombudsman’s decision

Directions

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

(ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Mrs A’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 Mrs A.

3 CAS-83010-S5D1

(i) pay the missing contributions to the Scheme;

(ii) establish with NEST whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in Mrs A’s Scheme account than she would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

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

Within 14 days of receiving confirmation from NEST of any shortfall in Mrs A’s units, pay to the Scheme the cost of any additional units required to make up that shortfall.

Anthony Arter

Pensions Ombudsman 15 September 2022

4 CAS-83010-S5D1

Appendix

5