Civil Service Pension Scheme · CAS-77821-P0V7

CAS-77821-P0V7

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs P

Scheme Civil Service Pension Scheme (the Scheme)

Respondent UK Health Security Agency (the Employer)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties 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 P was a member of the defined contribution section (the DC section) of the Scheme, administered by Legal & General.

On 27 January 2021, Mrs P directed the Employer to debit £34.30 from her monthly pay, to be contributed into her pension.

On 17 May 2021, Mrs P checked her pension account online and found the Employer had failed to match her contributions as per its policy.

On 19 May 2021, the Employer emailed Mrs P to inform her that it would correct the level of contributions to be paid into her pension each month and make good the shortfall she had suffered.

1 CAS-77821-P0V7 On 12 June 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer to inform it that its payments were still incorrect.

On 17 June 2021, the Employer confirmed to Mrs P that it had not actioned the increased contributions yet and that it would backdate the payments to February 2021.

On 30 June 2021, Mrs P checked her pension account online and could see that the outstanding contributions owed by the Employer had still not been paid into her account. She sent an email to the Employer to process the payment as soon as possible.

On 1 July 2021, the Employer emailed Mrs P to inform her that it was submitting payment to her pension account that day.

On 3 July 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer to inform it that the payment had not yet been made into her pension account and she requested details of its complaint process. She also requested for her contributions to be adjusted to 3% of her salary, which is the maximum value the Employer would match.

On 8 July 2021, Mrs P checked her pension account online and noted the Employer had processed the backdated increased payments.

On 10 July 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer with a completed contribution request form to change her monthly contributions from a fixed amount of £34.30 monthly to 3% gross of her salary. She reiterated that the Employer was to match her contribution as per its policy.

On 10 August 2021, Mrs P checked her pension account online and noticed a payment of £2,171.35 had been paid into her account on 9 August 2021. So, she emailed the Employer to ask about the payment made.

On 19 August 2021, the Employer emailed Mrs P and advised her the payment was made in error and that it should have paid £487.21 to the Scheme, instead of £2,171.35 to account for the shortfall owed to her due to the adjustment.

On 21 August 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer to make a formal complaint, as she felt there had been maladministration in relation to her pension. She emphasised her patience while she had been waiting three months for it to pay the correct increased payment into her pension.

On 23 August 2021, the Employer acknowledged Mrs P’s complaint.

On 2 September 2021, the Employer emailed Mrs P to inform her it would investigate her complaint by 10 September 2021. Mrs P emailed the Employer back and queried why her monthly contributions had increased from £65.88 to £69.85 in August, as she had not received a pay increase.

On 11 September 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer for an update in relation to her complaint. 2 CAS-77821-P0V7 On 13 September 2021, the following events took place:-

• The Employer emailed Mrs P to apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint. It said in summary:-

o A human error occurred when it was processing its contribution into the Scheme.

o A retrospective contribution was calculated incorrectly which led to the wrong amount being contributed into the Scheme.

o It confirmed it corrected the amount being paid into her pension account and that it had retrieved the overpayment from the Scheme. An offer was given to Mrs P for her statement of earnings and contributions to be provided to her upon her request.

• Mrs P responded to the Employer’s email and reiterated that it did not respond to her query in relation to her August contribution.

On 21 September 2021, Mrs P sent a chaser email to the Employer to respond to her previous email.

On 24 September 2021, the Employer sent an acknowledgement email to Mrs P.

On 5 October 2021, the Employer emailed Mrs P to inform her that for the months July, August, September she had been paying 3% employee contributions into the Scheme. It confirmed there had been no error for her August contribution and that her pensionable pay varied during the months of August and September, due to her receiving additional pensionable elements of pay. An attachment of her full payment history and breakdown was provided to Mrs P.

On 5 October 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer and explained that its policy stated that overtime was not pensionable and she should not have contributed more into her pension because of this. She also confirmed that no response was provided to her in relation to the lost growth of her pension due to its errors. She informed the Employer that she did not need any further response from it, as she was leaving the matter with The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO).

On 6 November 2021, the Employer responded to Mrs P’s email. It said that as she was part time, any additional hours worked are pensionable as per its policy. It confirmed she had not paid pension contributions on her overtime payments.

On 14 November 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer indicating that no contribution had been paid into the Scheme since 12 October 2021. She requested information as to why payment was not paid into her pension account.

On 15 November 2021, the Employer emailed Mrs P. It said, due to a transition from Public Health England to the UK Health Security Agency, her contributions would be paid on 19 November 2021.

3 CAS-77821-P0V7 On 22 November 2021, Mrs P emailed the Employer to inform it that payment had not been paid into her pension as advised on 15 November 2021.

Following the complaint being referred to TPO, Mrs P and the Employer made further submissions that have been summarised below.

The Employer’s position (prior to the issue of the Adjudicator’s Opinion)

It takes the responsibility to properly manage and administer all pension schemes offered to employees. It strives to rectify any issues quickly.

An instruction was received by Mrs P to debit £34.30 from her monthly salary into her pension account on 27 January 2021. As per its Pension Department guidelines a response is required within 48 hours, which it met.

Mrs P’s case was unprecedented, the first where a member was paying a defined payment of £34.40, which is treated as a lump sum contribution, rather than a percentage of pay. It approached the Scheme’s administrator for clarification, and it was told that employers should match lump sum payments. It received written confirmation of this on 24 June 2021.

It informed Mrs P that the missing contributions would be paid to the Scheme in the next available pay run in June 2021. Adjustments are performed monthly, around the middle of the month, after the month to which payments refer.

A delay was caused due to this being the first time it processed extra employers’ payment for employee lump sum payments and due to an issue with the staff record system. So, payment could not be made to Mrs P’s pension account until July 2021. This was communicated to her.

Mrs P’s request to adjust her contribution to 3% was received on 12 July 2021. She was advised this would be processed in her August salary.

The error that occurred in relation to the overpayment of contribution was caused by the interference with the payments the pensions team had processed by its third- party payroll processors, who did not realise the adjustments for the previous month had already been processed. It should have been picked up during its payment process but it was made in error.

Mrs P received an adjustment from July 2021 of 8.75 extra basic hours in her August pay which were subjected to pension deductions. So, the higher amount contributed in August was correct.

The period of shortfall was for four months equating to £141.24. This covered the amount from February to May 2021. The shortfall was paid in June 2021.

4 CAS-77821-P0V7 It contacted the Scheme’s administrator to see whether there had been any financial loss, due to the contribution shortfall, who confirmed that there had been an investment loss of £208.14. It offered to pay this amount into Mrs P’s pension account within 30 days as fair resolution of her complaint.

As this was its first case of matching a lump sum payment, it has initiated processes and guidance to avoid any recurrence of the issues experienced by Mrs P.

Mrs P’s position (prior to the issue of the Adjudicator’s Opinion)

Adjudicator’s Opinion

5 CAS-77821-P0V7

The Employer failed to take the necessary actions to put matters right within the timescale set out in the Opinion, but has now made the payments as recommended.

Mrs P was dissatisfied that despite reaching an agreement with the Employer, it failed to rectify matters within the timescale quoted in the Adjudicator’s Opinion. She requested that her complaint be passed to me to consider.

The Employer provided further comments in response to the Opinion as follows:-

• It expressed the urgency of the matter to MyCSP, however it was not in a position to control the timing of MyCSP’s delivery in processing the added pension payment.

• It was dependant on an external organisation to process the added pension payment and so, it cannot be held responsible for the delay caused.

I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion and note the additional points raised by the parties to the complaint.

Ombudsman’s decision

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman 25 November 2025

6