Standard Life Staff Pension Scheme · CAS-83244-M3K3

CAS-83244-M3K3

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs R

Scheme Standard Life Staff Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent Standard Life (SL)

Aptia UK Limited (Aptia)

Outcome

Complaint summary Mrs R’s complaint concerns the date on which she joined and left the Scheme. She also disputes the assertion from Mercer and SL that she chose to opt out of the Scheme in 2006, as opposed to when she left SL employment in 2007.

Background information, including submissions from the parties In 1999, Mrs R started her employment with SL.

On 24 January 2000, Mrs R joined the Scheme, a final salary defined benefit arrangement. Mrs R has said that, at the time, she believed the Scheme operated as a non-contributory arrangement, so the membership did not pay any employee contributions.

On 2 August 2004, Mrs R signed an “agreement to salary sacrifice” form. In doing so, Mrs R agreed that from 16 November 2004 she would sacrifice 2% of her salary, increasing to 3.5% in November 2005 and then to 5% in November 2006. The opt in form explained that from 16 November 2007, it was expected that the 5% salary sacrifice would continue to provide benefits based on an accrual rate of 1/60th.

On 20 March 2006, SL received an online request to opt Mrs R out of the Scheme.

On 11 June 2007, SL wrote to Mrs R and provided her with a copy of her P45. It explained that her final salary would be processed and paid to her by 15 June 2007. Any shares she held in the SL share plan could be transferred into her own name or sold. 1 CAS-83244-M3K3 On 15 June 2007, Mrs R left SL employment via a career break.

On 26 August 2020, Mrs R telephoned Mercer, the Scheme’s administrator, to query her pensionable service dates and her final pensionable salary. She explained that on SL’s online portal her Scheme leaving date was 28 February 2006; however, she left SL employment on 15 June 2007. Her final pensionable salary was also lower than expected as, when she left the Scheme, her salary was in excess of £30,000.

On 8 October 2020, Mercer asked Mrs R to provide evidence to support her claims that her pensionable service/salary were incorrect.

On the same day, Mrs R responded to Mercer providing a number of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) documents which outlined her tax payments with SL, between 1992 to 2007. In the tax year 2006/07, her taxable salary was £33,906.59; she said that this should indicate what her pensionable salary was in previous years.

On 1 November 2020, Mrs R followed up on her email to Mercer of 8 October 2020, as she was yet to receive a response.

On 6 November 2020, Mercer told Mrs R that it was liaising with SL to query her pensionable service/salary. It would contact her again within five working days.

On 27 December 2020 Mrs R sent Mercer further evidence which said that a final pension payment was taken from her wages on 15 June 2007. Since 6 November 2020, she was yet to receive any communication from Mercer about her service/salary dates.

On 16 February 2021, Mercer informed Mrs R that it had located a document which indicated that she elected to opt out of the Scheme on 28 February 2006. It was, however, aware that she did not recall opting out of the scheme in 2006. It asked her to provide any leaving documentation that she was sent when she left SL in 2007.

On 17 February 2021, Mrs R told Mercer that she no longer retained any paperwork relating to her employment with SL. She did not recall opting out of the Scheme, let alone requesting and completing an opt out form. She did not obtain any financial advice on opting out.

Between February and April 2021, Mrs R continued corresponding with Mercer about the alleged discrepancy in her pension service and salary.

On 15 April 2021, Mercer informed Mrs R that the instruction to opt her out of the Scheme was received from her former employer, SL. Consequently, she needed to contact SL to query why she was opted out of the Scheme.

On 22 May 2021, Mrs R submitted a formal complaint to SL and explained that she did not agree that she opted out of the Scheme on 28 February 2006. She did not leave SL employment until 15 June 2007. She never sought, or took, any financial advice on the matter and held no records to suggest that she had opted out of the

2 CAS-83244-M3K3 Scheme. If she was opted out of the Scheme, she also queried what happened to the pension contributions she paid between February 2006 and June 2007.

On 19 July 2021, SL responded to Mrs R’s complaint and explained that:-

• She elected to join the Scheme on 2 August 2004. The Scheme operated as a salary sacrifice agreement, so, she gave up part of her salary in exchange for SL making pension contributions on her behalf.

• Its records indicated that she opted out of the Scheme on 28 February 2006, with a letter of confirmation this being sent on 30 March 2006. Thereafter, her salary would have increased as she was no longer under the salary sacrifice agreement, and SL was no longer paying contributions into the Scheme on her behalf.

• Her payslips from 30 March 2006 would have shown that she was no longer having any salary sacrifice deductions taken from her monthly salary. The payslips would also have confirmed that she was a deferred member of the Scheme.

• SL would not have been in a position to offer advice on whether or not to opt out of the Scheme. If she was now claiming she did not intend to opt out, then she should have obtained financial advice at the time.

On 3 August 2021, Mrs R asked SL to double check the date she joined the Scheme, as she should have joined it in 1999, when her employment with SL began. She was unsure how she opted out of the Scheme, on 28 February 2006, when she was unaware that this was an option. It should provide evidence of the opt out form she signed, as well as any information that would have been sent out to her. She queried whether a change in her role, in 2006, might have affected her Scheme membership.

On 20 September 2021, SL responded to Mrs R and said:

• a letter dated 24 January 2000 was sent to her inviting her to join the Scheme. She did not, however, elect to join until 2 August 2004;

• as she was not a member of the Scheme between 1999 and 2004, neither she, nor SL contributed into the Scheme;

• in the event there was an error in her start date, herself, and SL, would need to make up any missing contributions;

• SL was not required to explain the consequences of opting out as it was unable, nor required, to provide advice;

• a change in her role, in 2006, would not have affected her Scheme membership;

• there was no reason to doubt SL’s records, however, if she disputed any of the dates, it was her responsibility to provide evidence to support her assertions; and

3 CAS-83244-M3K3 • if she was unhappy with SL’s final position, she should refer her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

On 3 October 2021, Mrs R submitted a data subject access request to SL, and Mercer, to obtain any and all information they held regarding her employment and pension benefits. Mr R also referred her complaint to the FOS.

On 24 January 2022, SL wrote to Mrs R and explained that:-

• It had recently double checked her start date for joining the Scheme with Mercer, and it was discovered that she actually joined the Scheme on 24 January 2000, not on 2 August 2004. This aligned with her contract of employment.

• Her pension benefits under the Scheme would therefore be calculated with reference to a start date of 24 January 2000.

• A copy of the opt out form that she signed on 28 February 2006 was provided to her. This confirmed that she chose to opt out of the Scheme and that Mercer’s records were correct.

• At the time, to opt out of the Scheme was through “self-service”. So, she would have had to submit an online form or request a form from SL’s human resources department to complete and return. SL held a copy of the online form that she completed to opt out of the Scheme.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

4 CAS-83244-M3K3

Mrs R did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion, and the complaint was passed to me to consider. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note the additional points raised by Mrs R, which are:-

• It was illogical and near impossible for her to prove that she did not opt out of the Scheme. It was SL and Mercer who insisted that she opted out of the Scheme on 28 February 2006, so it should be up to them to provide positive, verifiable evidence of the actions she took to opt out.

• The evidence provided by SL and Mercer that she opted out on 28 February 2006 was a screen shot of an internal record. It was not signed by herself, nor was there any evidence that she had personally accessed the Scheme system to opt out. There was no time stamp on the form, no confirmation of submission, receipt or confirmation. Nor was there any follow up correspondence available confirming that she had opted out.

• She did not receive any advice to opt out of the Scheme given that opting out was a significant financial decision. She did not know that opting out of the Scheme was possible or advisable. She would have thought that in opting out she would have received contemporaneous communication to confirm her actions.

• She did not accept that salary sacrifice deductions being absent from her payslips from February 2006 confirmed that she opted out of the Scheme. Missing deductions form her payslips could have been caused by administrative errors. 5 CAS-83244-M3K3 • SL and Mercer previously insisted that she did not join the Scheme until 2 August 2004. She was told that it was for her to provide evidence to demonstrate that she joined the Scheme at an earlier date. However, during the course of her complaint SL and Mercer discovered that she had in fact joined the Scheme on 24 January 2000. This undermined the credibility of their records and their accuracy.

• SL and Aptia were adamant that she only opted into the Scheme on 2 August 2004 and that there was “no reason to doubt [SL’s] records”. The fact that it was discovered that their records were incorrect should prove that the date she opted out of the Scheme could also be incorrect.

• She had no recollection, or reason, to opt out of the Scheme. She remained employed by SL until June 2007 and there was no documented evidence that she voluntarily opted out of the Scheme.

Ombudsman’s decision

6 CAS-83244-M3K3

Dominic Harris Pensions Ombudsman

5 September 2025

7