Pensions Ombudsman determination

Nest · CAS-57202-R6V2

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-57202-R6V2

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Miss H

Scheme NEST (the Scheme)

Respondent DTech Property Print Limited (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties In December 2017, Miss H began her employment with the Employer.

Between August 2019 and April 2020, the Employer failed to pay pension contributions into the Plan.

On 4 September 2020, Miss H brought her complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

Miss H provided copies of the payslips that she held for the period from August 2019 to March 2020, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and the corresponding employer contributions. The payslip for April 2020 is missing. These deductions amounted to £607.83. A breakdown of the deductions has been included in the Appendix.

1 CAS-57202-R6V2

Caseworker’s Opinion

• The Caseworker stated 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. She said that, as the Employer had not responded to any of TPO’s communications, she had to base her Opinion solely on the information provided by Miss H.

• The Caseworker said that she had no reason to doubt the information provided by Miss H, so, in the Caseworker’s Opinion, on the balance of probabilities, contributions had been deducted from Miss H’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, Miss H was not in the financial position she ought to be in.

• In the Caseworker’s view, Miss H 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-57202-R6V2 Directions

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

(ii) produce a schedule (the Schedule) showing the employee contributions deducted from Miss H’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 Miss H.

(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 Miss H’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 Miss H’s units, pay the cost of purchasing any additional units required to make up the shortfall.

Anthony Arter CBE

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 26 January 2023

3 CAS-57202-R6V2 Appendix Date Employee contributions Employer contributions

August 2019 £46.19 £34.65

September 2019 £46.19 £34.65

October 2019 £46.19 £34.65

November 2019 £46.19 £34.65

December 2019 £46.19 £34.65

January 2020 £46.19 £34.65

February 2020 £46.19 £34.65

March 2020 £23.97 £17.98

April 2020 Payslip missing Payslip missing

Total £347.30 £260.53

4