The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has upheld a complaint against 'Mr M G T/A Confidentials' for failing to pay contributions into a worker's pension despite deducting contributions from her pay.

The employer was ordered to pay £3,000.06 into the scheme, and to pay the complainant, Ms S, £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience it had caused her.

In April 2021, Ms S began her employment with the employer. Between July 2021 and December 2022, the employer failed to pay pension contributions into the company’s smart pension scheme.

On 13 August 2023, Ms S brought her complaint to TPO.

Ms S provided copies of the payslips she held from July 2021 to December 2022, which detailed the pension contributions deducted from her pay and the corresponding employer contributions. These deductions amounted to £3,000.06 - £1,875.06 in employee contributions and £1,125 in employer contributions.

The employer told TPO it was in talks with The Pensions Regulator (TPR) regarding an arrangement to pay the unpaid contributions. However, it failed to provide any evidence of this to TPO.

As a result, the case was passed on to an adjudicator, who said that as the employer had not provided a sufficient response to any of TPO's communications, they had to base their opinion solely on the information supplied by Ms S.

They concluded that, due to its maladministration, Ms S was not in the financial position she ought to be in, which had caused her significant distress and inconvenience.

They said an award of £500 for non-financial injustice was appropriate in these circumstances.

The employer agreed to reimburse the outstanding contributions but said the injustice award was "unreasonable." The complaint was passed to the deputy pensions ombudsman, Camilla Barry, for consideration.

She agreed with the adjudicator, finding that the employee had committed maladministration. Accordingly, Ms S was entitled to a distress and inconvenience award for the significant ongoing non-financial injustice she had suffered.

This was exacerbated by its failure to respond during TPO's investigation into the initial complaint adequately, Barry added.

"To put matters right, the employer shall pay Ms S £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced and £3,000.06 into her scheme account.

“They must also establish with the scheme administrator whether the late payment of contributions has meant that fewer units were purchased in her scheme account than she would have otherwise secured, had the contributions been paid on time, and pay any reasonable administration fee should the scheme administrator charge a fee for carrying out the above calculation."

---