The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against the NHS Business Services Authority (BSA) for failing to automatically provide an employee with a pension saving statement (PSS).

NHS BSA was ordered to pay the complainant (Dr S) £1000 for the serious distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Dr S was a member of the 2008 section of the NHS pension scheme and the separate 2015 NHS pension scheme.

A PSS must be sent to members who exceed the standard annual allowance (AA), which was £40,000 in the tax years 2016/17 to 2018/19.

A PSS must also be sent to a member who requests one, within three months.

On 24 November 2018, Dr S's financial adviser emailed the NHS BSA and asked for a PSS for the 2016/17 and 2017/18 tax years.

On 5 December 2018, the NHS BSA sent Dr S a PSS for the 2015 scheme, for the tax year 2017/18, but the 2008 PSS for 2017/18 and the 2008 and 2015 PSS for 2016/17 were not issued.

Later, in October 2019, Dr S telephoned the NHS BSA because he had not received a PSS for the 2018/19 tax year.

He was advised that NHS BSA did not receive details from his trust in time and could not calculate the AA amount.

He was told that it would be ready in three months and that he should contact the NHS BSA if he had not received it.

On 1 January 2020, Dr. S emailed the AA department stating that he required a PSS.

On 2 January 2020, Dr S received an email notification from the AA department that his email of 1 January 2020 had been deleted without being read.

Following this, Dr S made a formal complaint, which was passed on to an adjudicator.

The adjudicator concluded that the NHS BSA's maladministration would have caused Dr S significant distress and inconvenience, and they should compensate him £500.

Dr S did not accept the adjudicator's opinion, and the complaint was passed to the ombudsman, Dominic Harris, for consideration. He partially agreed with the adjudicator's decision.

In his decision, Harris said: “I agree with the adjudicator's opinion that the NHS BSA's failures were maladministration. However, I disagree with my adjudicator that this falls within the 'significant' category for a distress and inconvenience award.

“Rather, as this occurred on several occasions, with breaches of both the legislation and the stated level of service set out on the website, my view is that this amounts to 'serious' distress and inconvenience and warrants an award of £1,000.

“I have also considered Dr S's argument that the maladministration caused him financial loss. However, I find that this is not an amount that NHS BSA should pay Dr S, as he continued to make payments into the scheme rather than opting out, so he will receive higher pension benefits.”

---