Pensions Ombudsman determination

Nest · CAS-92384-L7C8

Complaint upheldRedress £1,0002023
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-92384-L7C8

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Ms T

Scheme NEST (the Scheme)

Respondent St Mark’s Care Home Limited (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties In October 2017, Ms T began her employment with the Employer.

Between August 2019 and January 2021, the Employer failed to pay pension contributions into the Scheme.

On 15 August 2022, Ms T brought her complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

Ms T provided copies of the payslips that she held for the period from August 2019 to January 2021, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and the corresponding employer contributions. These deductions amounted to £1,357.67. A breakdown of the deductions has been included in the Appendix.

1 CAS-92384-L7C8

Caseworker’s Opinion

• The Caseworker said that TPO’s normal approach, in cases such as these, was to seek agreement from all parties on the facts of the complaint, including the dates and amounts of contributions involved. He said that, as the Employer had not responded to any of TPO’s communications, he had to base his Opinion solely on the information provided by Ms T.

• The Caseworker said that he had no reason to doubt the information provided by Ms T. So, in the Caseworker’s Opinion, on the balance of probabilities, contributions had been deducted from Ms T’s salary but had not been paid into the Scheme. In addition, the Employer had not paid any of the employer contributions that were due over the same period. As a result of its maladministration, Ms T was not in the financial position she ought to be in.

• In the Caseworker’s view, Ms T had suffered serious distress and inconvenience due to the Employer’s maladministration. The Caseworker was of the opinion that an award of £1,000 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ombudsman’s decision

2 CAS-92384-L7C8 Directions

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

(ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Ms T’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 Ms T.

(i) pay the missing contributions to the Scheme;

(ii) establish with the Scheme whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in Ms T’s Scheme account than she would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time; and

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

Within 14 days of receiving confirmation from NEST of any shortfall in Ms T’s units, pay the cost of purchasing any additional units required to make up the shortfall.

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 27 April 2023

3 CAS-92384-L7C8 Appendix Date Employee contributions Employer contributions

August 2019 £84.63 Not shown

September 2019 £77.18 Not shown

October 2019 £77.38 Not shown

November 2019 £84.57 Not shown

December 2019 £76.97 Not shown

January 2020 £84.57 Not shown

February 2020 £88.06 Not shown

March 2020 £57.47 Not shown

April 2020 £79.81 Not shown

May 2020 £86.11 Not shown

June 2020 £74.09 Not shown

July 2020 £72.82 Not shown

August 2020 £66.28 Not shown

September 2020 £63.44 Not shown

October 2020 £57.77 Not shown

November 2020 £78.48 Not shown

December 2020 £60.11 Not shown

January 2021 £66.71 Not shown

4